Dripping Springs Direct Potable Reuse Feasibility Study

CITY OF DRIPPING SPRINGS
DIRECT POTABLE REUSE FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL
April 2015
4/10/2015
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-882
8911 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY NORTH, SUITE 2200 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759 P. 512.453.5383 F. 512.453.0101
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/
City of Dripping Springs

Direct Potable Reuse Feasibility Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 1-1

WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................... 1-1
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL .......................... 1-3
1.3.1 South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant............................................. 1-3
1.3.2 Future Expansion of Wastewater Service................................................... 1-4
DIRECT POTABLE REUSE ................................................................................... 1-4
STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 1-4
CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

REGULATION OF POTABLE REUSE .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1
2.2
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Introduction to Potable reuse ...................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Water Rights and Project Permitting Approach .......................................... 2-2
POTABLE REUSE REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES .................................... 2-3
2.2.1 Chemical Removal Goals and Requirements ............................................. 2-3
2.2.2 Pathogen Removal Goals and Requirements ............................................ 2-4
2.2.3 Potable Reuse in Other Parts of the U.S. ................................................... 2-5
CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................... 3-1

WATER QUALITY GOALS ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
END USES DEFINE WATER QUALITY GOALS ................................................... 3-1

WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR POTABLE REUSE............................. 3-2
3.2.1 Salinity ........................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.2 Nutrient Concentrations .............................................................................. 3-2
3.2.3 Other Chemicals of Concern ...................................................................... 3-2
3.2.4 Pathogens .................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.5 TCEQ Effluent Characterization Requirements for DPR ............................ 3-4
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE TO ONION CREEK ..... 3-5
3.3.1 Salinity 3-5
3.3.2 Nutrient concentrations ............................................................................... 3-5
3.3.3 Other Water Quality Parameters of Concern .............................................. 3-5
3.3.4 Pathogens .................................................................................................. 3-6
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND APPLICATION VIA
CANOPY SPRAY ................................................................................................... 3-6
April 2015
CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

WASTEWATER TREATMENT .......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Flows 4-1
4.1.2 Current Effluent Water Quality .................................................................... 4-1
RETROFIT FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL ........................................ 4-2
PREVIOUS EVALUATION OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR................................. 4-6
CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................... 5-1

POTABLE REUSE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 5-1
5.1
5.2
5.3
DPR TREATMENT EVALUATION ......................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Introduction to Treatment Train Concepts .................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Pathogen Log Removal Goal Overview...................................................... 5-3
5.1.3 Chemical Removal Mechanisms ................................................................ 5-4
5.1.4 Salinity Evaluation ...................................................................................... 5-5
5.1.5 Preliminary Sizing of the Proposed Treatment Concept ............................. 5-9
5.1.5.1 Ozonation ..................................................................................... 5-9
5.1.5.2 Biofiltration .................................................................................. 5-11
5.1.5.3 Ultrafiltration ............................................................................... 5-12
5.1.5.4 Inter-Process Storage Tank........................................................ 5-13
5.1.5.5 Optional Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption ........................ 5-14
5.1.5.6 Ultraviolet Disinfection ................................................................ 5-14
5.1.5.7 Chemical Disinfection ................................................................. 5-15
5.1.6 Advanced Process Monitoring and the Engineered Storage Buffer ......... 5-16
DPR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND ELEMENTS ........................................... 5-19
5.2.1 Project Location Alternatives .................................................................... 5-19
5.2.1.1 South Regional Wastewater Treatment Site Location ................ 5-20
5.2.1.2 Upstream Site Location .............................................................. 5-20
5.2.2 Source Water Considerations ................................................................... 5-20
5.2.3 Collection System Tie-In ........................................................................... 5-21
5.2.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Requirements ............................................. 5-21
5.2.5 Considerations for Advanced Treatment Source Water ........................... 5-21
5.2.6 Storage Considerations ............................................................................ 5-22
5.2.6.1 Effluent Storage .......................................................................... 5-22
5.2.6.2 Inter-Process Storage................................................................. 5-22
5.2.6.3 Finished Water Storage .............................................................. 5-23
5.2.7 Drinking Water Distribution Tie-In ............................................................. 5-23
5.2.8 Effluent Disposal Infrastructure................................................................. 5-23
5.2.8.1 Infrastructure for Effluent Discharge at South Regional Plant
Site ............................................................................................. 5-23
5.2.8.2 Infrastructure for Effluent Discharge at Upstream Project
Location ...................................................................................... 5-24
5.2.8.3 Land Application Infrastructure ................................................... 5-24
5.2.9 Ancillary Project Elements ........................................................................ 5-24
DISCUSSION OF INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE ................................................ 5-24
5.3.1 Augmentation of Onion Creek .................................................................. 5-24
5.3.2 Groundwater Augmentation ...................................................................... 5-25
April 2015
ii
CHAPTER 6 ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

EFFLUENT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES......................................................................... 6-1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL OVERVIEW...................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 TPDES Permitting....................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 TLAP Permitting.......................................................................................... 6-1
EVALUATION OF LAND APPLICATION ............................................................... 6-2
6.2.1 Regulation .................................................................................................. 6-2
SUBJECT TRACT PROPOSED FOR LAND APPLICATION ................................. 6-2
LAND APPLICATION CALCULATIONS................................................................. 6-4
6.4.1 TABLE C-1 - A First Look (30 TAC 285 Method)........................................ 6-4
6.4.2 TABLE C-2 - Detailed Water Balance......................................................... 6-4
6.4.2.1 Water Balance Parameter Assumptions ....................................... 6-6
6.4.3 TABLE C-3 - Calculating the Volume of Effluent Storage Required ........... 6-7
6.4.4 TABLE C-4 Nitrogen Uptake Calculations ............................................... 6-8
6.4.5 TABLE C-5 Storage Pond Volume Calculation........................................ 6-8
6.4.6 Costs 6-8
6.4.7 Discussion of Findings and Land Application Alternatives ......................... 6-9
6.4.8 Other Notes ................................................................................................ 6-9
DISCHARGE ........................................................................................................ 6-10
6.5.1 Water Quality Requirements for Discharge .............................................. 6-10
6.5.2 Discharge Infrastructure ........................................................................... 6-11
CHAPTER 7 ....................................................................................................................... 7-1

PLANNING LEVEL COST ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 7-1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
APPROACH TO COST ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 7-1

DPR AT SOUTH REGIONAL PLANT SITE WITH DISCHARGE ........................... 7-2
DPR WITH LAND APPLICATION .......................................................................... 7-4
DPR AT UPSTREAM SITE .................................................................................... 7-7
COST COMPARISON ............................................................................................ 7-8
CHAPTER 8 ....................................................................................................................... 8-1

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS................................................................................. 8-1
8.1
8.2
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 8-1

NEXT STEPS ......................................................................................................... 8-2
CHAPTER 9 ....................................................................................................................... 9-1

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 9-1
April 2015
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
TCEQ EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODEL OUTPUTS
EFFLUENT LAND APPLICATION CALCULATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1
Table 2.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 5.8
Table 5.9
Table 6.1
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
Table 7.10
Dripping Springs Water Supply Company Service Summary ..................... 1-3

Pathogen Concentration End Goals for Drinking Water ............................. 2-4
Current and Projected Future Effluent Flows ............................................. 4-1
Summary of Current Effluent Water Quality ............................................... 4-2
Wastewater Model Influent Design Criteria ................................................ 4-2
Wastewater Model Results for Filtered Effluent ......................................... 4-6
Log Removal Overview of Reverse Osmosis-Based Treatment Train ....... 5-3
Log Removal Overview of Ozone/Biofiltration Based Treatment Train....... 5-4
Basic Process Design Criteria for Ozone Process ................................... 5-11
Basic Process Design Criteria for Biofiltration Process ............................ 5-12
Basic Process Design Criteria for Ultrafiltration Process .......................... 5-13
Basic Sizing Criteria for Inter-Process Storage Tank ............................... 5-14
Basic Process Design Criteria for Ultraviolet Disinfection Process........... 5-15
Basic Process Design Criteria for Final Chemical Disinfection................. 5-16
Process Monitoring Parameters for Advanced Treatment ........................ 5-18
Alternative Scenarios for Land Application .............................................. 6-10
Alternative 1A Capital Costs ...................................................................... 7-2
Alternative 1A Operation and Maintenance Costs ..................................... 7-3
Alternative 1B Capital Costs ...................................................................... 7-3
Alternative 1B Operation and Maintenance Costs ..................................... 7-4
Alternative 2A Capital Costs ...................................................................... 7-5
Alternative 2B Capital Costs ...................................................................... 7-6
Alternatives 2A and 2B Operation and Maintenance Costs ....................... 7-6
Alternative 3 Capital Costs ........................................................................ 7-7
Alternative 3 Operation and Maintenance Costs ........................................ 7-8
Comparison of Costs for the Proposed Project Alternatives ...................... 7-9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 5.1
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Overview Map ........................................................................................... 1-2

Proposed BNR Treatment Schematic ........................................................ 4-4
Proposed Aeration Basin Configuration (Plan View) .................................. 4-5
Conceptual Process Flow Diagrams for Advanced Treatment Train
Alternatives ............................................................................................... 5-2
Salinity Mass Balance Schematic .............................................................. 5-6
Advanced Water Treatment System Process Flow Diagram.................... 5-10
Proposed Site Layout with Advanced Treatment at the South Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................................................... 5-17
Proposed Spray Irrigation Site Layout ....................................................... 6-3
Disposal Application Rates for Texas (30 TAC 285.90 Figure (1)) ........... 6-5
April 2015
iv
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACO
AOP
ASR
BAF
BOD
Carollo
CBOD5
Assimilable organic carbon

Advanced oxidation process
Aquifer storage and recovery
Biologically active filter
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Carbonaceous biological oxygen demand
CE
CFU/100mL
City
Effluent Electrical Conductivity

Colony-forming units per 100 milliliters
CL
Cl2
CN
Ct
DBPs
DPR
DSWSC
EC
EQ
ESB
ETs
FRT
GAC
gpd
HAAs
HDPE
IMLR
IPR
K
LAS
lbs
LPHO
LRVs
MBR
MCLs
mg/L
Mgal
mgd
mJ
MPN/L
NaOCl
Electrical Conductivity Limit

Chlorine
Curve Number
Product of disinfectant concentration and contact time
Disinfection byproducts
Direct Potable Reuse
Dripping Springs Water Supply Corporation
Electrical Conductivity
equalization
engineered storage buffer
Evapotransipration values
Failure Response Time
Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Gallons per day
Haloacetic acids
High-density polyethylene
internal mixed liquor recirculation system
Indirect Potable Reuse
Irrigation efficiency
Liquid ammonium sulfate
pounds
Low pressure high output
Log Removal Values
Membrane Bioreactor
Maximum Contaminant Level
Milligrams per liter
Million gallons
Milllion gallons per day
Milli Joules
Most proable number per liter
Sodium hypochlorite
April 2015
ng/L
NWRI
O3
O3-BAF
PGMS
ppm
PUA
PVC
RO
RWPF
sf
TAC
TCEQ
TDS
THMs
TN
TLAP
TOC
TOrCs
TP
TPDES
TSS
TWC
TWDB
UF
ug/L
USDA
USEPA
UV
UVDGM
UVT
WRRF
WWTP
April 2015
Nanograms per Liter

National Water Research Institute
ozone
ozone-biofiltration
Professional General Management Services
parts per million
West Travis County Public Utility Agency
Polyvinyl chloride
Reverse Osmosis
Raw Water Production Facility
square foot
Texas Administrative Code
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Total dissolved solids
Trihalomethanes
Total nitrogen
Texas Land Application Permit
total organic carbon
Trace organic constituents
total phosphorus
Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Total Suspended Solids
Texas Water Code
Texas Water Development Board
ultrafiltration
micrograms per liter
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ultraviolet
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Guidance Manual
Ultraviolet Light Transmittance
WateReuse Research Foundation
Wastewater Treatment Plant
vi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
OVERVIEW
The City of Dripping Springs is located in Hays County, Texas, twenty-five miles southwest
of the State capital, Austin. The Austin metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the nation (Forbes, 2015 and U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a). In
addition, the U.S. Census Bureau ranked Hays County as the 14th fastest growing county
in the U.S with a population increase of twelve percent between 2010 and 2013 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2014b).
Like much of Texas over the past several years, the City has experienced drought
conditions ranging from moderate to severe (U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center,
2015). Drought conditions, along with an increase in population, have lead to strain on the
Citys water supplies.
The City itself is also experiencing significant growth associated with its proximity to Austin,
with several large tracts proposed for private development at various stages of permitting
and build-out. Some of these have obtained their own wastewater permits for onsite
treatment and disposal (CMA, 2013), but have indicated to the City that their preference
would be to tie into the Citys existing wastewater collection and treatment system.
An overview map of the City is shown in Figure 1.1.
1.2
WATER SUPPLY
The Dripping Springs Water Supply Corporation (DSWSC) provides drinking water and
manages the drinking water distribution system for 1,402 active connections in the Dripping
Springs area. The DSWSC operates four groundwater wells that have a joint capacity of 1.5
million gallons per day (MGD), and also has a contract with the West Travis County Public
Utility Agency (PUA) to deliver up to 1 MGD of treated water purchased from the Lower
Colorado River Authority (DSWSC, 2015).
Table 1.1 shows the sources and quantities of water purchased and provided by DSWSC
for 2011-2014.
April 2015
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH01
1-1
Study Area
Dripping Springs
Future 35,000 gpd Drip Irrigation

(City Athletic Fields)
Future 186,000 gpd Surface Irrigation
(Caliterra Development)
DSWSC Well Field/

Ground Storage Tank
127,000 gpd Onsite Drip Irrigation
South Regional WWTP
Legend
Sanitary Sewer
Water Distribution System
Current and Future Irrigation Sites
100-Year FEMA Floodplain
0.15
0.3
VICINTY MA
VICINITY MAP
0.6
Miles
FIGURE 1.1
Table 1.1
Dripping Springs Water Supply Company Service Summary

Active Connections
Water Purchased (Mgal)(3)
Water Pumped (Mgal)
Total (Mgal)
(4)
2011
2012
2013
2014(2)
1,353
1,331
1,371
1,402
198
150.5
132
115
84
66.5
91.5
63
282
217
223.5
178
Notes:
(1) Data taken from Draft Feasibility Study (Analysis of Consolidating Water Utility Systems),
dated Feb 2, 2015 (NewGen, 2015).
(2) 2014 Data only for January through September.
(3) Purchased water is from PUA, which enters the service area along Highway 270 from the east.
See Figure 1.1.
(4) Pumped water is from local wells located on the south end of the service area. See Figure 1.1.
1.3
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Several studies have been conducted on behalf of the City with respect to strategies for
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. While many of the outlying areas
surrounding the City are currently still served by on-site septic systems, an existing core of
the City is connected via sewer to the South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (South
Regional Plant).
1.3.1
South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
The South Regional Plant treats the wastewater from municipal and commercial
connections in the Dripping Springs area and is managed by Professional General
Management Services (PGMS). The plant operates as a conventional activated sludge
process that includes a mechanical bar screen, aeration, clarification, chlorination, and
aerobic digestion. The plant is rated for 127,500 gallons per day (gpd) and currently treats
an average flow of approximately 70,000 gpd.
The City currently holds a Texas Land Application Permit (TLAP; permit no.
WQ0014488001), issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) that
allows for disposal of the effluent from the South Regional Plant via drip irrigation on-site. A
pending amendment to the Citys TLAP permit includes plans to implement cloth filters at
the South Regional Plant in order to be able to meet draft permit requirements for spray
irrigation at the Caliterra development once the flow at the South Regional Plant exceeds
the existing TPDES permit capacity (CMA, 2014).
April 2015
1-3
1.3.2
Future Expansion of Wastewater Service
The current approach to wastewater treatment and disposal for new residential
developments in the Citys service area involves implementing small, decentralized
treatment systems at several property developments, with effluent disposal consisting of
surface or subsurface irrigation systems. However, given the given the capital expense,
land required, and reverse economies of scale associated with each development operating
its own wastewater treatment and disposal system, this approach is inefficient compared to
centralized treatment solutions. In addition, the developers would prefer to tie into the Citys
centralized system instead of devoting valuable tracts of land from each development to the
disposal of effluent. In fact, a recent evaluation recommended centralized treatment and
pursuing a permit for effluent discharge to Onion Creek in conjunction with a beneficial
reuse authorization, despite anticipated public resistance to such a proposal (CMA, 2013).
1.4
DIRECT POTABLE REUSE
Based on the Citys growth in the face of dwindling existing water supplies in the region and
the expense of land application for effluent disposal, the City has tasked Carollo Engineers,
Inc. (Carollo) with performing a study that considers the feasibility of direct potable reuse
(DPR). A DPR project could simultaneously provide additional potable water resources to
the Citys service area and also divert effluent from being discharged to Onion Creek.
A DPR project would be implemented with the intent to reuse as much as possible of the
effluent produced by the City through treatment in an advanced water purification process
and subsequent potable uses. However, for both permitting and technical reasons, an
alternative disposal mechanism for effluent would still be needed as a backup to DPR. As
part of the study, Carollo was therefore also tasked with a comparison of land application
and discharge as the backup effluent disposal options to a DPR project.
1.5
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study is to determine the feasibility, treatment requirements, and
planning-level cost for developing a direct potable reuse project to supplement drinking
water supplies in the Greater Dripping Springs area and to minimize or eliminate the need
for discharge of treated wastewater. Specifically, the goals of this study are to:
1.
Develop water quality goals for the treated water for direct potable reuse (DPR);
2.
Determine permitting requirements for a DPR project in the City;
3.
Develop one or more feasible DPR alternatives;
4.
Determine planning-level cost information for a preferred subset of the DPR

alternatives; and
5.
Develop a list of next steps for moving forward with a DPR project.
April 2015
1-4
Chapter 2
REGULATION OF POTABLE REUSE

2.1
OVERVIEW
In the broadest sense, reuse refers to the intentional use of treated effluent from
wastewater treatment facilities for some beneficial purpose. Two main types of reuse exist:
non-potable, and potable.
The State of Texas regulates water reuse through several methods, including the
requirements for direct reuse (non-potable) described in Division 30 of the Texas
Administrative Code, Chapter 210 (30 TAC 210) and 30 TAC 321 Subchapter P (satellite
facilities), and indirect reuse through the Texas Water Code (TWC) Paragraph ()11.042
governing bed and banks permits and TWC 11.046 governing return flows. The
regulations for direct reuse include water quality requirements for Type I and Type II
reclaimed water, which are both limited to non-potable uses, whereas the regulations
governing indirect reuse do not include water quality requirements.
Faced with an urgent need for additional water supplies in parts of the state, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has been approving direct potable reuse
(DPR) projects, (the Raw Water Production Facility (RWPF) at Big Spring and the
Emergency DPR Project in Wichita Falls), on a case-by-case basis in accordance under the
innovative/alternative treatment clause in 30 TAC 290 that allows any treatment process
that does not have specific design requirements listed in that chapter to be permitted.
2.1.1
Introduction to Potable reuse
Within potable reuse, one can define three main subcategories:

De facto reuse, which is the unintentional or unacknowledged reuse of treated effluent by
users downstream of the point of discharge, is a practice that regularly occurs throughout
Texas as upstream wastewater discharges are subsequently reused by downstream water
users. Nearly all major river basins, including the Lower Colorado, contain examples of de
facto reuse. As water demands increasingly strain available resources, both intentional
indirect potable reuse (see below) and de facto reuse will continue to increase in frequency,
and the distances between treated effluent discharges and raw water intakes will continue
to shrink.
April 2015
2-1
Indirect potable reuse (IPR), is similar to de facto reuse, in that treated effluent is
discharged to an environmental system (called environmental buffer) that may consist of a
river, lake (or reservoir), or aquifer before being withdrawn for potable use. States vary in
their regulation of IPR. Texas regulates IPR water quality based on existing wastewater
discharge and surface (or groundwater) treatment rules in much the same way de facto
reuse is regulated. Thus, the distinction between IPR and de facto reuse is limited to the
intent to reuse the water for potable purposes, as evidenced by the procurement of water
rights associated with the treated effluent discharged. As a side note, the State of California
regulates IPR separately from existing wastewater and drinking water regulations, as
described in more detail below.
Direct potable reuse (DPR), is the direct reuse of treated effluent that has been subjected to
significant advanced water treatment for potable purposes. Specifically, DPR is
distinguished from IPR by the lack of an environmental buffer into which treated effluent is
discharged before being withdrawn for potable purposes. Practically speaking, this reduces
the total cycle time for potable reuse from a timeframe of weeks to years in the case of de
facto reuse and IPR to as little as a few days or less for DPR projects. This close coupling
of treated effluent to drinking water has significant implications on treatment and monitoring
requirements.
2.1.2
Water Rights and Project Permitting Approach
While a water rights and detailed permitting analysis is outside the scope of this study, the
following is a brief summary of the situation anticipated to apply to this project:
For a DPR project such as the one discussed in this study, the water rights situation is
generally pretty straightforward. Unless there are specific provisions in water supply
contracts that stipulate otherwise, the treated effluent from a WWTP is not subject to
reappropriation unless it is discharged to a Water of the State. In a DPR scenario, this
discharge does not occur, leaving full consumptive ownership of the water in the hands of
the entity producing the treated effluent. While Carollo anticipates that the City should have
full consumptive rights to the treated effluent from South Regional Plant, including the
option to sell to a third party, the City should confirm this before proceeding with the project.
In that sense, the water rights situation of a DPR project is much like that of a direct (nonpotable) reuse scenario, which involves application and TCEQ approval of a 210
authorization for reuse. Because it falls outside the purview of existing specific regulation,
the DPR project itself is then subject to an exception letter approval process administered
by the Water Supply Division at TCEQ. The focus of the analysis in this study, as it pertains
to permitting, is to meet water quality and treatment requirements anticipated to be set by
the Water Supply Division.
April 2015
2-2
As the project progresses, close coordination with TCEQ will be necessary to determine
whether the conditions assumed above apply to the City and this project and to determine
all permitting and approval requirements.
2.2
POTABLE REUSE REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
Pathogens and chemicals constitute the two main classes of constituents of concern in
potable reuse.
2.2.1
Chemical Removal Goals and Requirements
A large number of chemicals known to be detrimental to human health above certain

concentrations are regulated through maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Drinking water
must be treated to meet these standards regardless of the source. Therefore, any treated
effluent that is proposed for supply augmentation should be tested for the full suite of these
compounds. A copy of TCEQs recommendations for effluent characterization is provided in
Appendix A.
Besides the chemical (and radiological) constituents explicitly regulated through MCLs, a
wealth of research has been conducted on the concentrations of unregulated trace organic
constituents (TOrCs) in wastewater, their attenuation through conventional WWTPs, and
their further breakdown during advanced treatment (Baronti et al, 2000; Lovins et al., 2002;
Schfer et al., 2005; Sedlak et al., 2006; Steinle-Darling et al., 2010; Linden et al., 2012;
Salveson et al., 2010; Salveson et al., 2012; Snyder et al., 2012; and many others). These
constituents include pharmaceuticals, personal care products, consumer chemicals, flame
retardants, and others, some of which have endocrine disrupting, carcinogenic, and/or other
potentially harmful properties at sufficiently high concentrations. Due to this fact (and some
help from media interest), this group of constituents has often been the cause of more
public concern than the pathogens discussed below. However, the vast majority of TOrCs
are present in treated effluent, if at all, at concentrations that are not of concern for human
health (Trussell et al., 2013).
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) are another suite of parameters that warrant consideration
for potable reuse projects. Conventional DBPs, such as trihalomethanes (THMs),
Haloacetic Acids (HAAs), bromate, and chlorate, are regulated by the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rules (USEPA, 1998 and 2006a). NNitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and other nitrosamines have been considered for regulation
by the USEPA for over a decade (they are on the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule 2 list and the Candidate Contaminant List 3), and NDMA has a California Notification
Level of 10 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is considered the minimum treatment
benchmark by the California utilities currently implementing potable reuse.
April 2015
2-3
2.2.2
Pathogen Removal Goals and Requirements
With respect to current drinking water regulations, the pathogens of primary concern for
potable reuse include enteric viruses, such as Adenovirus, Norovirus, and Enterovirus, and
the protozoa Giardia and Cryptosporidium. In some cases, though not in Texas, enteric
bacteria (such as Salmonella) are also considered. Because treated effluent is generally not
considered an acceptable source water under existing drinking water regulations (it is
neither a groundwater, nor a surface water, nor a groundwater under the influence of
surface water), the treatment requirements in current drinking water regulations are
generally considered inadequate for the protection from the health risk presented by
pathogens. Therefore, additional requirements for pathogen control that are specific to
potable reuse have been developed. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
Water treatment regulations for pathogens are predicated on reducing the risk of infection
to minimal levels. Table 2.1 identifies the concentration end goals for targeted pathogens
that correspond to a modeled, annual risk of infection of 1 in 10,000 or less (Trussell et al.,
2013). TCEQs case-by-case approach to developing treatment requirements for potable
reuse projects is based on determining the difference between the values in Table 2.1 and
the measurement of project-specific effluent pathogen concentrations.
Table 2.1
Pathogen Concentration End Goals for Drinking Water

Pathogen
Giardia
(cysts/L)
Cryptosporidium
(oocysts/L)
Enteric virus
(MPN/L)
Potable goal
6.80E-06
3.00E-05
2.22E-07
Notes:
(1) End goals are based on achieving a risk level of 1 in 10,000 annual risk of infection as listed
by Trussell et al. (2013); values confirmed by personal communication with TCEQ staff.
Beyond the theoretical calculation of log removal credits, TCEQ also requires significant
pilot testing to be completed before a project can achieve final approval. This can be
achieved from operation of a dedicated, smaller-scale pilot unit that appropriately mimics
the proposed final treatment solution, or though full scale verification.
This second approval method allows treatment facilities to be approved for construction
without completing a pilot study prior to design of the full-scale system. With a full-scale
verification approach, which was the basis for the City of Wichita Falls Emergency DPR
project, for example, the full-scale facilities are operated in pilot mode to collect the data
necessary for final approval while finished water is sent to disposal pending final approval
by TCEQ to deliver water. Given the relatively small scale of the proposed DPR plant for
the City of Dripping Springs, the second piloting option may be more cost effective.
April 2015
2-4
2.2.3
Potable Reuse in Other Parts of the U.S.
The most recent industry recommendations for potable reuse treatment beyond meeting
existing water quality goals for drinking water include pathogen control that achieves at
minimum 12-log virus, 10-log protozoa (Giardia and Cryptosporidium), and 9-log removal or
inactivation of total coliform (as a surrogate for Salmonella). This was established by a
panel of national experts convened by the National Water Research Institute in the context
of WateReuse Research Foundation Project (WRRF) No.11-02, Equivalency of Advanced
Treatment Trains for Potable Reuse (Trussell et al., 2013). The State of California has
recently adopted regulations for indirect potable reuse (via groundwater injection only),
which requires 12-log virus, 10-log Giardia, and 10-log Cryptosporidium removal (CDPH,
2014).
Unlike the requirements put forth by TCEQ, the log removal recommendations and
requirements, put forth by the NWRI Panel and the State of California respectively, allow for
treatment that occurs throughout the entire treatment train, from the upstream end of
wastewater treatment facilities to the finished potable water produced from a downstream
water treatment plant. Specifically, this approach gives credit for primary, secondary, and
tertiary wastewater treatment, whereas TCEQ does not.
Therefore, while the total log removal requirements put forth by TCEQ in its currently
approved DPR projects have lower numerical values, TCEQs approval process does not
allow any treatment credits to be claimed at the wastewater treatment plant. In general, the
stringency of the criteria developed for WRRF 11-02 and those applied by TCEQ appear to
be similar. In fact, they are based on the same fundamental pathogen goal concentrations
in drinking water cited in Table 2.1.
The water rights issues associated with reuse (potable and non-) across the U.S. vary
significantly from state to state and are not covered here.
April 2015
2-5
Chapter 3
WATER QUALITY GOALS

3.1
END USES DEFINE WATER QUALITY GOALS
In any DPR project, the main water quality goals are defined by meeting requirements for
potable use. However, in this project, two additional sets of constraints may be placed on
water quality. These requirements are associated with the two disposal alternatives for the
treated effluent that will serve as the source water for DPR.
It is important to note that while the purpose of implementing a DPR project would be
to divert all treated effluent for potable reuse such that no water is wasted via
disposal, a permitted disposal option must be included in any DPR project. This
permitted disposal option is required from a regulatory perspective, as with any
reuse authorization (30 TAC 210). It is also imperative that such a backup disposal
option exist for the protection of public health in the event of a process failure during
advanced treatment.
Hence, the three categories of potential effluent end-use are evaluated include:
1.
Potable use,
2.
Discharge to Onion Creek, and
3.
Land application via canopy spray.
Each of these use categories is associated with a set of water quality requirements,
discussed in more detail in the sections below. In general, however, they can be broken
down into four main categories:
1.
Salinity
2.
Nutrient concentrations
3.
Other Water Quality Parameters of Concern
4.
Pathogens
Therefore, the following sections will discuss the water quality requirements associated with
each use category for each of the water quality parameter categories listed above.
April 2015
3-1
3.2
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR POTABLE REUSE
3.2.1
Salinity
Texas has enforceable secondary standards for salinity, which comprise the following:
Total dissolved solids (TDS), with a limit of 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L),
Sulfate, with a limit of 300 mg/L, and
Chloride, with a limit of 300 mg/L.
These limits must be maintained by any drinking water supply and serve as the goals for
this project as well.
3.2.2
Nutrient Concentrations
Nutrients as a category do not directly apply to drinking water quality limits. However, two
inorganic nitrogen compounds, nitrate and nitrite, considered nutrients in the aquatic
environment, are also limited in drinking water. The drinking water MCL for nitrate is
10 mg/L as nitrogen (N). The drinking water MCL for nitrite is 1 mg/L as N. The total nitrate
plus nitrite MCL is also 10 mg/L as N.
The nitrate and combined nitrate/nitrite limit is higher than the total nitrogen limit anticipated
for effluent discharge (6 mg/L as N, for ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate combined; see
Section 3.3.2) and will therefore be met if the anticipated standards for discharge are being
met.
However, the acute nature of nitrate and nitrite toxicity to humans, which is manifested as
methemoglobinemia (known as blue baby syndrome in infants) means that it is more
critical to meet this goal consistently.
Therefore, the Carollo proposes an effluent total nitrogen goal of less than 5 mg/L
regardless of the effluent permitting requirements.
This limit is also anticipated to maintain nitrite concentrations well below the MCL of 1 mg/L.
Additional removal of nitrogen species is anticipated in advanced treatment, though some
addition (ammonia, for formation of chloramines) will also occur.
3.2.3
Other Chemicals of Concern
As discussed in Chapter 2, water quality goals for chemical constituents should include any
constituents that are currently regulated in drinking water. These include organic chemicals,
inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, and other parameters.
April 2015
3-2
Existing drinking water regulations were not intended for use in intentional potable reuse
scenarios, especially DPR, and therefore do not take into account the added risk of
coupling a wastewater source directly with a drinking water supply. Beyond the additional
treatment requirements put in place by TCEQ with respect to pathogen control for DPR
(see Section 3.2.4), screening for and tracking the removal of unregulated constituents
therefore represents an appropriate standard of care for a DPR project. In addition, while
not directly regulated by TCEQ, the inclusion of treatment processes that are able to
adequately address the presence of unregulated chemical constituents are anticipated to
be required as part the case-by-case approval process for a DPR project.
Additional water quality goals for the project should therefore include meeting the screening
values for unregulated constituents as developed by Trussell et al. (2013). These screening
values cover several classes of constituents, including unregulated disinfection byproducts,
pharmaceuticals and personal care products. As noted by Trussell et al. (2013), the
concentrations of most of these chemicals are anticipated to be well below their health
screening levels even in secondary effluent. The design goals of the advanced treatment
process train proposed include the purpose of reducing the concentrations of these
unregulated constituents even further.
In summary, the treatment goals for chemicals of concern include meeting all primary and
secondary drinking water standards. In addition, unregulated chemicals listed by Trussell et
al. (2013) will be tracked for their removal during the pilot testing phase.
3.2.4
Pathogens
Pathogen removal requirements for DPR projects in Texas are determined for each
applicant on a case by case basis as a function of pathogen concentrations found in the
effluent and final drinking water goal concentrations of 2.2 x 10-7 most-probable number
(MPN)/L enteric virus, 6.8 x 10-6, cysts/L Giardia and 3.0 x 10-5 oocysts/L Cryptosporidium,
respectively (see Table 2.1). Because these concentrations cannot be verified directly by
measurement, treatment requirements are based on establishing log removal values
(LRVs) that are credited to treatment processes, where 1-log corresponds to 90% removal,
and 4-log corresponds to 99.99% removal, etc.
Based on their respective effluent sampling results, the DPR project in Big Spring is
required to achieve 8-log virus, 6-log Giardia, and 5.5-log Cryptosporidium inactivation and
the DPR project in Wichita Falls must meet 9-log virus, 7-log Giardia, and 5.5-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation. In addition, since its original emergency permit approval for
temporary operation over a 6-month period, the Wichita Falls project has added an
additional disinfection step to increase its overall LRVs for protozoa (Giardia and
Cryptosporidium).
April 2015
3-3
Given that the South Regional Plant will need to be upgraded to achieve nutrient removal
(see Chapter 4), it is not constructive to sample the existing effluent to determine precise
LRV requirements at this time. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the project team
assumed values that correspond to the upper 95th percentile of those measured at six
wastewater treatment plants by Rose et al. (2004), as reported in more detail by Olivieri et
al. (2007).
Based on these conservative assumptions, the design goals for the advanced water
treatment plant developed in this study include minimum LRV targets of 9-log virus,
9-log Giardia, and 7.5-log Cryptosporidium.
These assumed values are the same or slightly higher than those required for the two
existing DPR facilities in Texas.
3.2.5
TCEQ Effluent Characterization Requirements for DPR
To determine the treatment requirements for a DPR project, TCEQ requires that the source
water proposed for the DPR project, generally secondary effluent, be characterized with
respect to chemical and microbial constituents. A copy of the current recommendations
provided by TCEQ for this effluent characterization process is provided in Appendix A.
In summary, TCEQ recommends screening for all chemicals that are regulated in drinking
water, pathogens, specifically virus and protozoa (as discussed in Section 3.2.4), and bulk
water quality parameters. The data collected must be able to adequately represent
seasonal variability in water quality, which means that the listed parameters must be
sampled more than once over the course of at least one year.
TCEQ specifically recommends sampling effluent over a period of one year, including 24
samples analyzed for microorganisms, nitrate, nitrite, pH, and temperature (though the
specific microorganisms included in this 24-sample recommendation are not listed
specifically) and at least four samples for the other chemicals listed (see Appendix A).
Based on previous project experience, the analytical costs associated with screening
effluent, monitoring during pilot testing, and periodic confirmation testing during routine
operation can be significant.
April 2015
3-4
3.3
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE TO

ONION CREEK
3.3.1
Salinity
Per existing TCEQ guidance (TCEQ, 2010), salinity is not considered in TPDES permitting
for flows under 1 mgd. That alone is sufficient to determine that salinity will not create a
restriction for discharge to Onion Creek.
Therefore, no salinity restrictions on a discharge to Onion Creek are anticipated for this
project.
3.3.2
Nutrient concentrations
Onion Creek is located in the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer contributing zone. Amongst
other factors, this makes it very sensitive to nutrient addition. Consequently, there are
currently no TPDES permits for discharging wastewater effluent directly into Onion Creek.
Based on an existing permit (for Hays County Water Control and Improvement District No.1
(Belterra Subdivision), WQ0014293001) for discharge into Bear Creek, a tributary of Onion
Creek, the expected water quality requirements for discharge into Onion Creek would
include strict restrictions on total nitrogen and total phosphorus.
For the purposes of this study, the water quality limits for discharge to Onion Creek are
assumed as follows:
Total nitrogen (TN) limit: 6 mg/L as N
Total phosphorus (TP) limit: 0.5 mg/L as phosphorus (P)
Additional water quality modeling will be required to determine if these assumed values are
appropriate. Such modeling is outside the scope of this study.
3.3.3
Other Water Quality Parameters of Concern
Traditional wastewater effluent loading parameters, such as biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) are also anticipated to be restricted to relatively
low concentrations in Onion Creek. As discussed above for nutrients, the precise
determination of proposed discharge limits it outside the scope of this study. However,
based on the implementation of biological nutrient removal to reduce nutrient
concentrations to the values listed above and the planned implementation of cloth filters as
outlined in the pending Major Permit Amendment to the Citys existing TLAP Permit (No.
WQ0014488001), organic and solids concentrations (BOD and TSS) should not be limiting
factors.
April 2015
3-5
For the purposes of this study, the water quality limits for discharge to Onion Creek are
assumed as follows:
BOD5 limit: 5 mg/L
TSS limit: 5 mg/L
In addition, the following are anticipated to be required:
6.0 < pH < 9.0
Chlorine disinfection with a minimum combined chlorine residual of 1 mg/L after

minimum of 20 minutes of contact time
3.3.4
Pathogens
A typical pathogen limit for wastewater discharge, 126 CFU/100mL E. Coli, is assumed to
be adequate in this case. The existing chlorine contact basin with the contact time and
residual requirements listed above will be adequate for achieving this standard. The
planned cloth filters will provide additional pathogen removal capacity, especially for larger
microbes such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Thus pathogen removal and/or inactivation
are not anticipated to be limiting requirements for discharge to Onion Creek.
3.4
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND

APPLICATION VIA CANOPY SPRAY
In general, the water quality requirements for land application are anticipated to be much
less stringent than those for discharge to Onion Creek, as follows:
BOD5 < 20 mg/L daily average
TSS < 20 mg/L daily average
In addition, the following are anticipated to be required:
6.0 < pH < 9.0
Chlorine disinfection with a minimum combined chlorine residual of 1 mg/L after

minimum of 20 minutes of contact time
These limits are representative of standard permit conditions for spray irrigation in location
where there is no public access, such as the tract of land proposed for application
evaluated for the purposes of this study (see Chapter 6).
No restrictions on concentrations of nutrients, salinity, pathogens, or other chemicals are
anticipated.
April 2015
3-6
Chapter 4
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
4.1
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The City sends wastewater to the Dripping Springs South Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant (South Regional Plant) located on the South side of Farm-to-Market Road 150
approximately one mile east of Ranch Road 12 in Dripping Springs, Texas. The City owns
the South Regional Plant, but the plant is operated on a contract basis by PGMS.
The South Regional Plant is a conventional activated sludge process that includes a bar
screen, aeration, clarification, chlorination, and aerobic digestions. Treated effluent is held
in a storage tank prior to disposal via subsurface drip irrigation.
4.1.1
Flows
A summary of the South Regional Plants actual and projected wastewater flows are shown
in Table 4.1. Effluent from the South Regional Plant is stored in an effluent storage tank
with a capacity of 333,000 gallons before being land applied at on-site drip irrigation fields.
Table 4.1
Current and Projected Future Effluent Flows

Parameter
Flow (gpd) (1)
Current Plant Flow
70,000
Existing Plant Design Flow
127,500
2020 Projected Flow
348,500
Notes:
(1) Source: CMA (2014).
4.1.2
Current Effluent Water Quality
A summary of current effluent characteristics are shown in Table 4.2. These are compared
to the anticipated or recommended water quality goals discussed in Chapter 3. Based on
this comparison, the current operation of the South Regional Plant meets organic and solids
concentration goals except during brief periods of excursion, but does not meet nitrogen
species concentration goals. Phosphorus data were not available for analysis.
More consistent operational oversight at the existing facilities would likely be sufficient to
consistently meet organics and solids concentration goals. However, the existing facilities
are inadequate to achieve the low nutrient concentration goals determined in Chapter 3.
April 2015
4-1
Table 4.2
Summary of Current Effluent Water Quality

Parameter (all in mg/L)

Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Nitrogen
Permit
Goal
(1)
(2)
Nitrate/Nitrite as Nitrogen
Median
Min
Max
(3)
(4)
N(5)
20
3.6
3.0
<1.0
25
272
20
5.4
5.0
<1.0
27
318
(6)
18.8
16.3
1.25
141
98
(6)
2
5
7.29
21.3
1.65
21.3
<0.05
<0.05
45.9
141
176
269
NL
Ammonia as Nitrogen
Mean
NL
NL(6)
Notes:
Samples taken between 2008 and 2014.
(1) Current permit conditions (WQ0014488001)
(2) Anticipated or recommended water quality goals as described in Chapter 3.
(3) Minimum value. Where preceded by <, numbers indicate value was below detection.
(4) Maximum value.
(5) Number of samples collected.
(6) No Limit for these parameters exists under the current permit.
4.2
RETROFIT FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
As part of the Dripping Springs Direct Potable Reuse project, Carollo evaluated the
feasibility of implementing a biological nutrient removal process to achieve a total nitrogen
(TN) limit of 6 mg/L and a total phosphorus (TP) limit of 0.5 mg/L. Historical wastewater
data for the period 2008-2014 was used to develop the design criteria for this evaluation.
The influent wastewater design criteria are displayed in Table 4.3. The maximum month
flow of 0.5 mgd represents the proposed permitted flow rate for the facility.
Table 4.3
Wastewater Model Influent Design Criteria

Dripping Springs WWTP Direct Potable Reuse
Parameter
Annual Average
Maximum Month
Wastewater flow, mgd
0.35
0.50
Five-day carbonaceous biological oxygen demand

(CBOD5), mg/L
270
265
Total suspended solids (TSS), mg/L
300
295
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), mg/L
60
59
Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), mg/L
46
44
Total phosphorus (Total P), mg/L
7.7
7.5
Alkalinity, mg/L
350
350
18-28
18-28
Seven-day average effluent temperature, C
April 2015
4-2
The selected configuration to achieve the target TP and TN limits was a four-stage
Bardenpho process. The addition of an external carbon source to the second anoxic zone
would be required to achieve the TN limit reliably. For this evaluation, methanol was
selected as the external carbon source. Other chemicals that can be used to enhance
denitrification are acetic acid, ethanol, sucrose, and Micro-C. The implementation of
chemical polishing would be required to achieve the TP limit reliably. For this evaluation,
alum was selected as the polishing chemical. Other chemicals that can be use for chemical
polishing include ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, ferrous chloride, and sodium aluminate. A
conceptual schematic of the Bardenpho process is shown in Figure 4.1. This process can
be implemented in the existing facility by commissioning the remaining volume of the
existing aeration basin, installing baffles to provide four zones (anoxic 1, oxic 1, anoxic 2,
and oxic 2), and providing an internal mixed liquor recirculation (IMLR) system. A plan view
of the proposed basin configuration is shown in Figure 4.2.
April 2015
4-3
Secondary Treatment
(Existing Aeration Basins Reconfigured for BNR)
Alum
Methanol
Recycle
Bar Screen
(Existing)
Anoxic
Chlorine Contact
(Existing)
Clarifiers
(Existing)
Oxic
Anoxic
To Advanced
Treatment
for DPR
Oxic
Return Activated Sludge
Waste Activated Sludge
Filters
(Proposed)
Effluent
Storage
To 210 Reuse
or Effluent
Disposal
Sludge Hauled
Off-Site
Aerobic Digesters
(Existing)
PROCESS FLOW FOR PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT

REMOVAL UPGRADES TO EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FIGURE 4.1
pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\TX\Dripping Springs\9756A00\Deliverables\Graphics\Figure 4.1.ai
PROPOSED AERATION BASIN CONFIGURATION

(PLAN VIEW)
FIGURE 4.2
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/Graphics/Fig_4.2.docx
Steady-state simulations were conducted using BioWin version 4.1. Table 4.4 presents a
summary of the modeling results for the effluent characteristics. A summary of the results is
included in Appendix B.
Table 4.4
Wastewater Model Results for Filtered Effluent

Dripping Springs WWTP Direct Potable Reuse
Parameter
(1)
Annual Average
Maximum Month
(28C)
Maximum Month
(18C)
Wastewater flow, mgd
0.35
0.50
0.5
CBOD5, mg/L
1.2
1.3
1.5
TSS, mg/L
0.7
1.1
1.1
TN, mg/L
4.5
5.1
5.5
NH3-N, mg/L
0.1
0.3
1.5
TP, mg/L
0.18
0.17
0.28
46
69
70
Alkalinity, mg/L
Notes:
(1) Annual average values calculated at 22 degrees Celcius (C).
The model results indicated that by modifying the existing basins, the facility will have
sufficient capacity to achieve the TN and TP goals at the proposed design flow (0.5 mgd)
without additional aeration basin volume or additional polishing steps. In the future, the
addition of deep bed filters could help polish effluent if additional capacity were needed.
The effluent alkalinity for all modeled scenarios was low, suggesting that the
implementation of an alkalinity addition system might be required. The influent alkalinity
value in the design criteria was based on a single measurement because the City does not
monitor this parameter. Carollo recommends the routine monitoring of alkalinity to
determine whether alkalinity addition will be required.
4.3
PREVIOUS EVALUATION OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR
An alternative to the implementation of the process changes discussed above for achieving
the TN and TP goals is to retrofit the South Regional Plant with membranes to implement a
membrane bioreactor (MBR). A previous initial evaluation and preliminary cost estimate for
converting the South Regional Plant into a membrane bioreactor (MBR) was conducted by
others (CMA, 2012). No additional evaluation of this option was conducted; however, the
existing cost estimate was used to develop a project alternative (Alternative 1B, see
Chapter 7) based on this potential MBR retrofit and cost estimate.
April 2015
4-6
Chapter 5
POTABLE REUSE ALTERNATIVES

5.1
DPR TREATMENT EVALUATION
5.1.1
Introduction to Treatment Train Concepts
No single treatment technology can or should be relied upon to provide sufficient treatment
for any potable application. The multi-barrier approach is especially important in treatment
for (direct) potable reuse due to the close coupling between wastewater and potable use.
Thus, while in theory, it would be possible to achieve the log removal credits necessary for
the project with just one technology (irradiation with ultraviolet light, for example), it is
important to include a number of different treatment processes with different modes of
action to create a robust and reliable overall treatment process or treatment train.
For this project, two main treatment train concepts were considered:
1.
Trains that center around an RO membrane as a main mode of contaminant removal,

and
2.
Trains that center around the combination of ozonation and biofiltration as the main
mode of contaminant removal.
While each of these central treatment concepts provide significant attenuation of both
chemicals and pathogens, it is difficult in either case to rely upon pathogen log removal
credits from the central process alone. Therefore, each of the candidate treatment trains
were augmented by additional steps that provide some additional chemical treatment
capacity but have the main purpose of achieving significant disinfection and the associated
pathogen log removal credits. These treatment train concepts are shown in Figure 5.1.
April 2015
5-1
RO Based Train
NaOCl
From Effluent
Holding Tank
NH3
Ultrafiltration
Reverse Osmosis
Ultraviolet Disinfection/
Advanced Oxidation
Process
To Distribution
Chlorine
Disinfection
Engineered
Storage
Buffer
Non-RO Based Train

NaOCl
O3
From Effluent
Holding Tank
NH3
Advanced
Oxidation
Process
Biologically Active
Filter
Ultrafiltration
Ultraviolet
Disinfection
To Distribution
Chlorine
Disinfection
Engineered
Storage
Buffer
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS FOR

ADVANCED TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 5.1
5.1.2
Pathogen Log Removal Goal Overview
Both treatment trains are anticipated to achieve the treatment goals for chemicals and
pathogens described in Chapter 3. Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 show an approximate allocation
of pathogen log removals to each of the two treatment trains and provide notes on the
efficacy with respect to chemical removal. Note that the formal pathogen inactivation credits
are achieved by the same technologies in each train (micro- or ultrafiltration, ultraviolet
irradiation, and chemical disinfection).
Table 5.1
Log Removal Overview of Reverse Osmosis-Based Treatment Train

Anticipated
LRVs(1)
V(2)
G(3)
C (4)
Particulate-associated chemical
removal, filtration of protozoa (G/C)
+(6)
Near-complete removal of most

dissolved chemicals
Ultraviolet Irradiation with

Advanced Oxidation
Oxidation of remaining chemicals
Chemical Disinfection
Disinfection byproduct formation

limited by lack of precursors
Total
12
10
10
Treatment Step
Ultrafiltration(5)
Reverse Osmosis
Notes on Treatment
Notes:
(1) Log Removal Values
(2) Enteric Virus
(3) Giardia
(4) Cryptosporidium
(5) Microfiltration is the standard approach, but ultrafiltration could also be used. Ultrafiltration
provides more credit for Giardia and Cryptosporidium removal.
(6) Plus sign (+) denotes additional pathogen removal potential for which LRVs are not credited.
April 2015
5-3
Table 5.2
Log Removal Overview of Ozone/Biofiltration Based Treatment Train

Anticipated
LRVs(1)
Treatment Step
Ozonation
V(2)
G(3)
C (4)
Notes on Treatment
++(5)
Ozone-mediated advanced oxidation

of chemicals into assimilable organics
Biofiltration
removal, filtration of protozoa (G/C),
and biotransformation of assimilable
organics
Ultrafiltration
removal, filtration of protozoa (G/C)
Ultraviolet Irradiation
Pathogen inactivation
Chemical Disinfection
Pathogen inactivation; formation of

byproducts a concern.
Total
12
10
10
Notes:
(1) Log Removal Values
(2) Enteric Virus
(3) Giardia
(4) Cryptosporidium
(5) Plus sign (+) denotes additional pathogen removal potential for which LRVs are not credited. A
double plus sign denotes significant (3-log or more) inactivation shown in challenge studies.
5.1.3
Chemical Removal Mechanisms
The main distinction between the two train concepts lies in the method of chemical removal:
With reverse osmosis (RO), the chemicals are physically separated from the product water
(permeate) by a membrane. This creates a waste stream that contains all the constituents
removed from the water at higher concentrations, including salt, any pathogens, and
organic and inorganic chemical contaminants. Disposal of this high-salinity waste stream
must be addressed. In addition, this waste stream constitutes between 20 and 25 percent of
the total flow that enters the treatment process, which is then lost for potable use.
With ozone-biofiltration (O3/BAF), the water is exposed to a strong oxidant (O3), which
breaks down large organics into smaller, assimilable organic carbon (AOC). This AOC is
then broken down further by the BAF, removing a significant fraction of the organic carbon
in the water, and removing or transforming residual concentrations of many TOrCs,
including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and other trace organic compounds.
The only waste stream from this process (filter backwash) can be recycled to the head of
the South Regional Plant, which allows this process to recapture nearly 100% of the water.
April 2015
5-4
The downside of the O3/BAF process compared to an RO process is that the former does
not remove salt. Therefore, it is only applicable to projects where:
1.
The salinity of the existing wastewater does not exceed potable water quality end
goals, and
2.
If the proposed projects passes the first test above, the recycle of this slightly higher
salinity purified water into the potable distribution must also not result in a steadystate potable salinity that exceeds the end goal.
Therefore, to continue evaluating the second treatment train concept, a salinity evaluation
must be conducted.
5.1.4
Salinity Evaluation
The affects of a DPR approach without salinity removal on steady-state potable water
salinity can be estimated using a simple mass balance approach, which is graphically
represented in Figure 5.2. The mass balance equations that can be derived from this figure
include:
QIN + TDSIN = QS*TDSS + QDPR*TDSDPR
(1)
QIN = QS + QDPR
TDSWW = TDSEFF
(2)
and
TDSEFF = TDSDPR
(3)
Where Q = flow in mgd and TDS = total dissolved solids in mg/L. The subscripts denote
flows as follows: S = supply from external potable source (PUA), IN = potable water
supplies to customers (average), WW = wastewater, EFF = treated effluent, and DPR =
advanced-purified water from DPR.
We can define an additional equation that described the salinity added through municipal
use:
TDSWW = TDSIN + TDSADD
(4)
where TDSADD is the amount of salinity added through municipal use.
April 2015
5-5
Flow Losses
Salinity Addition
Source
Water
QS*TDSS
Blend
QIN*TDSIN
Municipal
Use
Flow Losses
QWW*TDSWW
WWTP
Flow Losses
QEFF*TDSEFF
Advanced
Water
Treatment
QDPR*TDSDPR
Legend
Q = Flow (mgd)
TDS = Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
Subscripts:
S = Supply from Potable Source (PUA)
IN = Potable Water Supplied to Residents
WW = Wastewater
EFF = Treated Effluent
DPR = Advanced-Purified Water from DPR
SALINITY MASS BALANCE SCHEMATIC

FIGURE 5.2
The object of this calculation is to define both TDSDPR. and TDSIN. If TDSDPR is below the
water quality goal (1,000 mg/L, see Chapter 3), no additional blending with existing source
water is necessary to maintain overall water salinity at acceptable levels and no
desalination is needed.
If TDSDPR is above the water quality goal, then an evaluation of TDSIN is needed. If TDSIN is
below the water quality goal, then careful consideration of blending with existing water
supplies is needed to remain below the water quality goal in all parts of the distribution
system if desalination is to be avoided. If TDSIN is above the water quality goal, then either
desalination is needed or additional lower-TDS water is needed for blending.
Based on the rearrangement of equation (1) above,
TDSIN = QS*TDSS + QDPR*TDSDPR / QIN
= [QS*TDSS + QDPR*(TDSIN + TDSADD)]/ QIN
= (QS*TDSS + QDPR*TDSADD) / (QIN QDPR)
= (QS*TDSS + QDPR*TDSADD) / (QS)
(5)
If one assumes a given fraction of the water supply to be constituted by the water produced
from DPR (XDPR), one can substitute QDPR = XDPR*QS into equation (6) and obtain the
following:
TDSIN = (QS*TDSS +XDPRQS*TDSADD) / (QS)
TDSIN =TDSS +XDPR*TDSADD
(6)
And thus TDSDPR can be calculated:

TDSDPR = TDSWW = TDSIN + TDSADD.
(7)
The addition of salinity (TDSADD) from municipal use can range widely, from 150 mg/L to
380 mg/L (Asano et al., 2007; Table 3-11). An estimate of this value for the City was
calculated to be approximately 250 mg/L, based on TDS data for PUA (262 mg/L) and
DSWSC wells (758 mg/L) provided for years 2007 through 2012 (CMA Engineering, Inc.
(CMA), 2013.; see Table 6), the relative fraction of the supply sourced from DSWSC wells
pumped in 2013 (40%, see Table 1.1), with results in an average supply salinity of 465
mg/L as TDS. Subtracting this from the average effluent salinity for 2012-2013, 722 mg/L
TDS (CMA, 2013; see Table 5), yields 257 mg/L TDS added during use of that water.
April 2015
5-7
For these two scenarios, it was also assumed that the fraction of the total water supplied
would not exceed 25%. For reference, based on a very simplistic comparison of current
flows, the DSWSC provided approximately 600,000 million gallons (Mgal) in flow in 2013
(Table 1.1), whereas the South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant was seeing
approximately one-tenth that amount. Thus the 25% DPR fraction (XDPR) is a high-end
estimate.
Scenario #1: All DSWSC Well Water Plus DPR
This scenario assumes that DSWSC continues to pump water from its wells, but that the
remaining demand was made up with DPR water; thus the 2014 average supply salinity
from the DSWSC wells is used for TDSS. This represents a conservative estimate of the
highest steady-state salinity concentrations anticipated in the case of a DPR project without
desalination.
DSWSC supply salinity (TDSS) per CMA (2013) = 758 mg/L
Assume TDSADD = 250 mg/L
Thus:
TDSIN =TDSS +XDPR*TDSADD = 758 mg/L +0.25*250 mg/L = 820 mg/L
and
TDSDPR = TDSIN + TDSADD = 820 mg/L + 250 mg/L = 1,070 mg/L
Therefore, no average system salinity concerns are identified in this scenario, though the
salinity of the steady-state DPR water is calculated to be above slightly the maximum
concentration goal beyond which one must consider blending ratios with existing treated
water in order to ensure that no portions of the distribution receive water that exceeds the
1,000 mg/L TDS limit.
Scenario #2: DPR Offsets Well Pumping
This scenario assumes that the water provided to the City does not contain water from the
DSWSC wells. Thus the 2014 average supply salinity for water from PUA is used for TDSS.
PUA supply salinity (TDSS) per CMA (2013) = 263 mg/L
Assume TDSADD = 250 mg/L
Thus:
TDSIN =TDSS +XDPR*TDSADD =263 mg/L +0.25*250 mg/L = 326 mg/L
and
TDSDPR = TDSIN + TDSADD = 326 mg/L + 250 mg/L = 576 mg/L
April 2015
5-8
This calculation illustrates that not only should there be no concerns with respect to
increases if water from DPR replaced the water pumped from the DSWSC wells, it would
likely lead to an improvement in salinity for those residences currently receiving well water
from the DSWSC wells.
Thus, salinity removal is not a critical feature of the advanced treatment process for
this project. Based on the above, coupled with a lack of practical disposal options for
RO concentrate from an advanced treatment facility and the desire to recapture as
much of the flow as possible, the project team has selected the ozone-biofiltration
treatment concept for further evaluation.
5.1.5
Preliminary Sizing of the Proposed Treatment Concept
Based on the analysis above, the O3-BAF based treatment concept shown conceptually in
Figure 5.1 was evaluated in more detail to determine the feasibility and cost associated with
such a treatment scheme.
A more detailed conceptual process flow diagram for this concept is shown in Figure 5.3.
The purpose of each treatment process is summarized in the following:
5.1.5.1 Ozonation
Ozonation of secondary effluent produces an advanced oxidation process (AOP) in which
hydroxyl radicals are formed that oxidize a large variety of organic and inorganic
constituents that remain in the water after secondary treatment in the wastewater treatment
plant. These constituents are by definition those that are more difficult to break down during
biological treatment.
While the ozonation process does not generally result in reductions in bulk organic
measures such as TOC, it transforms the organic constituents into more readily
biodegradable substances, also known as assimilable organic carbon (AOC). This AOC is
then further degraded and mineralized during the subsequent Biofiltration step, in which 30
to 40 percent removal of TOC is generally achieved (Gerringer et al., in prep).
One downside of the ozonation process is the potential formation of disinfection byproducts
(DBPs), including nitrosamines (mainly N-nitrosodimethylamine or NDMA) and bromate.
The formation of nitrosamines can be mitigated by subsequent removal during Biofiltration.
However, the bromate, once formed, is difficult to remove, and has a drinking water MCL of
10 micrograms per liter (ug/L). The formation of bromate is dependent on the incoming
concentration of bromide, which is a reflection of the bromide present in the Citys drinking
water supply. While no data are available for bromide in the DSWSC water supply, the
bromide concentrations in water obtained from the Highland Lakes, which form a significant
portion of the DSWSC portfolio, indicate that bromide concentrations range between 150
and 200 micrograms per liter. This concentration range is high enough to warrant close
tracking of bromate formation during pilot testing and adjustment of ozonation design
parameters as warranted.
April 2015
5-9
NH3 (LAS)
Ozone Generation
PSA
O3
PSA
O3
Coagulant
From
Plant
Water
Cl2 (NaOCl)
UF
No. 1
BAF
No. 1
Overflow
BAF
No. 2
Effluent
Storage
Tank
Pipe Loop
Contractor
UF
No. 2
Equalization
Tank
Overflow
UV UV UV UV
Contact Time
GAC Contactor
Pipe Loop
(Optional)
UF Backwash
Backwash
Equalization
Tank
Waste
Hauled
Off-Site
To WWTP
Headworks
CIP System
Air Scour
Ozone Ozone
Destruct Destruct
(Optional)
Undisinfected
Secondary
Effluent
Return
Pumps
Engineered
Storage
Buffer
Overflow
to WWTP
Headworks
To
to Effluent
Distribution
Storage
Tank
BAF Backwash
C
CIP Return
and Disposal
ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

FIGURE 5.3
The likely presence of significant bromide concentrations means that the ozonation step
proposed for this treatment train will likely be limited by bromate formation. Hence, the
proposed ozone dose is limited to less than a one-to-one ratio of ozone to incoming TOC
(assumed to be 7 to 10 mg/L). An ozone dose in the range 0.8 to 1 times the TOC
concentration should achieve the desired AOP reaction described above (Gerringer et al.,
in prep.), however, it will not provide a measurable ozone residual. The use of a subresidual ozone dose means that no disinfection credits will be pursued for this treatment
step. However, based on previous and ongoing research work, significant pathogen
attenuation, especially of viruses (up to 5-log), occurs even at sub-residual ozone doses in
wastewater effluent. Therefore, this process provides a significant safety factor for
pathogen inactivation.
The preliminary design parameters for the ozone process shown in Table 5.8 reflect these
trade-offs, with an assumed delivered dose of 7 mg/L. The generator size is then calculated
as 30 lb/day (0.5 mgd * 7 mg/L * 8.34 lb/day/mgd/mg*L / 0.95; where 0.95 is the ozone
transfer efficiency). More detailed dosing will be determined during pilot testing.
Table 5.3
Basic Process Design Criteria for Ozone Process

Parameter
Units
Value
Influent Flow
mgd
0.5
Delivered Dose
mg/L
95
lbs/day
30
100
mgd
0.5
Transfer efficiency
Generator size
Effective Recovery
Effluent Flow
5.1.5.2 Biofiltration
As discussed above, the primary function of the biofilter is to transform and mineralize AOP
formed during the preceding ozonation step. A reduction of TOC in the range of 30-40
percent is anticipated during this treatment step. The biofilter also serves to reduce any
concentrations of nitrosamines formed during ozonation.
The biofilter also has a number of additional benefits, similar to those associated with
conventional media filtration. These include reductions in TSS and turbidity due to the
removal of particles, which also removes any chemicals or pathogens attached to those
particles. Additionally, the filters contribute directly to the removal of protozoa (Giardia and
Cryptosporidium) through sieving action. The bulk particle removal is of benefit to the
downstream ultrafiltration process, as it will reduce the fouling experienced by the
membranes. The removal of pathogens, though, once again, not formally credited with any
April 2015
5-11
log removal values, also serves as another safety factor in the pathogen removal achieved
by the overall treatment train.
The preliminary sizing of the filters shown in Table 5.4 reflect a conservative approach to
this relatively inexpensive process within the treatment train, with an empty bed contact
time of 20 minutes and two filters at 140 square feet (sf) filter area each. This results in a
conservative steady-state filtration rate of less than 2 gallons per minute per square foot
(gpm/sf) and provides complete redundancy when compared to TCEQs drinking water
filtration rate cap of 5 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sf). The backwash volume
per filter is calculated based on a 15-minute backwash time at 16 gpm/sf.
Table 5.4
Basic Process Design Criteria for Biofiltration Process

Parameter
Units
Value
Influent Flow
mgd
0.5
Filter Type
--
gravity
Filter Media
--
GAC
Empty Bed Contact Time
min
20
Number of filters
No.
Target flow per filter
mgd
0.25
Maximum loading rate
gpm/sq ft
Target loading rate
gpm/sq ft
Backwash type
--
air scour
Backwash rate
gpm/sq ft
16
Filter area (assumed)
sq ft
280
Volume needed for backwash
gal
33,600
Backwash frequency
day-1
Average Backwash Loss
mgd
0.067
mgd
0.5
Backwash water destination

Filtrate flow (average)
5.1.5.3 Ultrafiltration
The ultrafiltration (UF) step provides an additional, more stringent, layer of particle removal.
It also constitutes the first treatment process for which formal LRVs are targeted, with a 4log target for protozoa (Giardia and Cryptosporidium) based on direct integrity testing per
the Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (US EPA, 2005).
April 2015
5-12
Basic process design parameters are summarized in Table 5.5. The membrane flux target,
at 25 gallons per square foot per day (gfd) is on the low end for UF applications but is
estimated conservatively based on the reuse application. The current preliminary design
parameters assume two parallel UF trains each sized for 0.25 mgd. This provides
operational redundancy to keep downstream processes running while one skid is being
backwashed (daily for 90 minutes each). However, it does not provide full process
redundancy, resulting in an average capacity loss of approximately 7% and reducing
average flows to a maximum of 0.47 mgd.
An additional 5 percent of flow is lost in the form of the water needed for backwash and
cleaning, which is taken from the process equalization and backwash water storage tank.
Cleaning cycles and process recovery are based on industry standard values and will be
fine-tuned during piloting.
However, these flow limitations will only become significant once the actual flows to the
plant exceed this flow rate. As part of detailed design, the project team may consider
upsizing the UF process sufficiently to meet an average of 0.5 mgd throughput.
Table 5.5
Basic Process Design Criteria for Ultrafiltration Process

Influent flow
mgd
0.5
Flux
gfd
20-25
Number of units
No.
Capacity of each unit
mgd
0.25
Recovery clean duration
min
240
Maintenance clean duration
min
90
Backwash water destination

Recovery
Average UF Filtrate flow rate
WWTP headworks
%
95
mgd
0.5
5.1.5.4 Inter-Process Storage Tank

As shown in Figure 5.3, an inter-process storage tank is proposed between the ultrafilters
and the UV reactors for two purposes: (1) flow equalization and (2) biofilter and UF
backwash water storage. This second purpose is important to maintaining an active
microbial community in the biofilter, as water in this inter-process storage tank does not
contain a disinfectant residual. This purpose also controls the size of the tank.
April 2015
5-13
Basic tank sizing criteria are summarized in Table 5.6. The volume of water needed to
backwash each biofilter is estimated at 33,600 gallons (15 min * 140 sf * 16 gpm/sf). A
conservative sizing of 100,000 gallons is proposed at this time to provide additional process
equalization capacity.
The total flow and capacity losses combined manifest themselves in the average flow
leaving the EQ tank, which is limited to 0.38 mgd (0.067 mgd filter backwash plus 0.025
mgd UF cleaning losses plus 0.03 mgd UF process inefficiency during cleaning). Once
again, these limitations will only manifest themselves once the incoming flow from the
wastewater treatment plant nears the 0.5 mgd design criterion.
For the detailed design, the project team may consider both phasing the treatment design
to match incoming effluent supplies as well as upsizing treatment processes in order to
preserve a total 0.5 mgd finished water production capacity.
Table 5.6
Basic Sizing Criteria for Inter-Process Storage Tank

Minimum size per BAF
gal
33,600
Proposed size
gal
100,000
Total flow/capacity losses during

backwash/cleaning
mgd
0.12
Average product flow from EQ
mgd
0.38
5.1.5.5 Optional Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption

An option al granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration step will be considered between the
inter- process storage tank and the UV reactors in order to remove any remaining precursor
compounds that might result in the formation of regulated disinfection byproducts in the
downstream chemical disinfection step. The GAC will also help increase the UV
transmittance of the water, leading to better disinfection. This process step is not currently
included in the cost estimate because the project team anticipates that it will not be needed.
This determination will be made during pilot testing.
5.1.5.6 Ultraviolet Disinfection
The only purpose of the ultraviolet irradiation (UV) process is pathogen inactivation. This
process is currently targeted with achieving 6-log removal for all three relevant pathogen
classes (virus, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium). The controlling organism for UV inactivation
is virus, which requires the highest dose per log removal credit awarded.
April 2015
5-14
Basic process design parameters are summarized in Table 5.7. Detailed reactor selection
was beyond the scope of this study, however at least two reactors in series will be needed
to achieve 6-log reduction because validation of any reactors for drinking water use based
on the Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Guidance Manual (UVDGM; US EPA, 2006) it limited to
4-log. Per the UVDGM (see Table 1.4), the minimum UV dose to achieve 4-log virus
removal is 186 milli-Joules per centimeter squared (mJ/cm2). Under the assumption that
two reactors in series will be needed, this dose is chosen as the target dose per reactor in
order to achieve 6-log through two reactors plus a safety factor of 1-log per reactor. An
additional, redundant reactor is proposed to protect against system downtime.
A UV transmittance (UVT) of 85 percent is anticipated based on typical UF filtrate water
quality. While previous sections have discussed flow losses throughout the treatment train,
each train element is currently sized for 0.5 mgd flow for simplicity. This will also reduce the
upsizing requirements needed to reach a final finished water flow of 0.5 mgd.
Table 5.7
Basic Process Design Criteria for Ultraviolet Disinfection Process

Design flow
mgd
0.5
--
LPHO
Virus Log Removal Target
log
Number Reactors in Series
No.
n+1(1)
mJ/cm2
186(1)
Incoming UV Transmittance
85
Process Recovery
100
mgd
0.38
Type
Dose per Reactor (target 4-log virus)
Average final product water flow
Notes:
(1) The design requirement is that at least one redundant reactor be provided. The target dose
per reactor is based on the assumption that n=2. A different design dose per reactor may be
chosen if more than three reactors are placed in series.
5.1.5.7 Chemical Disinfection

A final chemical disinfection step rounds out the pathogen log removal requirements. As
mentioned above, each train element is currently sized for 0.5 mgd flow. In order to achieve
significant disinfection, a period of free chlorination (achieved through dosing of sodium
hypochloride, NaOCl) is required before the addition of ammonia (in the form of liquid
ammonium sulfate, LAS) to form a chloramines-based residual for distribution. The dosing
point for the NaOCl is set upstream of the UV reactors, both to take advantage of additional
residence time within the reactors, as well as to provide the potential for an AOP reaction
should the UV dose be sufficient to create one. The effect of this potential AOP will be
tested during piloting.
April 2015
5-15
Basic process design parameters are summarized in Table 5.8. The target Ct of
6.8 mg/L-min as Cl2 is based on achieving 4-log virus removal at 8C per US EPA Ct
tables. With a 4 mg/L target residual, a contact time of 2 minutes, and an in-pipe flow rate of
1.7 feet per minute or less, a total contact pipe length of 200 feet or more is required. To
achieve this flow rate, a 10-inch pipe is proposed that exits the advanced treatment building
on the south end and runs north the length of the building to the engineered storage buffer
tank (see Figure 5.4). The resulting pipe has a length-to-width ratio of 250, comfortably
within the requirements of the criterion of >100 needed for a T10 baffle factor of 1.
The chlorine dosing requirement of 6 mg/L assumes a 2 mg/L instantaneous chlorine
demand, which will be fine-tuned during pilot testing. The ammonia dosing requirement is
based on a 4.25:1 mass ratio of free chlorine residual (as Cl2) to ammonia residual (as N).
Table 5.8
Basic Process Design Criteria for Final Chemical Disinfection

Parameter
Units
Value
Design flow
mgd
0.5
mg/L-min
6.8
Chlorine target residual
mg/L as Cl2
Chlorine (NaOCl) target dose
mg/L as Cl2
Free chlorine contact time goal
min
Pipe length for free Cl2 contact
ft
200
Target Ct for free chlorine
Liquid ammonium sulfate (LAS) dosing location

LAS target dose
5.1.6
Engineered Storage Buffer inlet

mg/L as N
Advanced Process Monitoring and the Engineered Storage Buffer
Advanced treatment for potable reuse requires not only advanced treatment processes, but
advanced monitoring of those processes. Based on ongoing research to define the
appropriate level of advanced monitoring for DPR projects, process monitoring should
consist of a combination of online or rapid response surrogate measures and periodic
confirmation sampling.
April 2015
5-16
Scale:
Advanced
Treatment
Building
Legend:
Existing
WWTP
RawWastewater
ExistingEffluent
FutureUndisinfected
SecondaryEffluent
FutureReclaimedWater
PurifiedWater
FilterBackwash
100ft
(upgraded
toBNR)
EffluentPS
Cl2
(exist.future)
LAS
OffSpecWaterFlows
Future
Reclaimed
Storage
toDSWSC
GroundStorageTank
Existing
Effluent
Storage
Future
Filters
1MG
Purified
Water
Storage
TargetpipelengthforCtcredits=200ft
Existing(future)
EffluentConveyance
Toexisting
Existing dripdisposal
sewer
Purified
WaterPS
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT WITH ADVANCED TREATMENT

AT THE SOUTH REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FIGURE 5.4
In particular, to mitigate the risks of the close coupling between wastewater and finished
drinking water, the concept of Failure Response Time (FRT) was developed for
WateReuse Research Foundation Project No. 12-06 (Steinle-Darling et al, in prep) as a
means to define the amount of storage holding time is needed to confirm that finished
water meets all the quality specifications before it can be released into the distribution
system. The failure response time for any given process is determined by the monitoring
method that conservatively and conclusively confirms process efficacy. Whereas other bulk
water surrogates (turbidity, TOC) may be monitored more frequently for the purpose of
process adjustment and optimization, the monitoring method used to determine process
integrity must provide a conservative estimate of the log removal value provided by each
process (direct integrity test for UF, for example). If this value is not met, the treatment train
is shut down until and/or water is diverted until corrective measures are taken.
Table 5.9 provides a preliminary summary of the process monitoring parameters proposed
for the advanced treatment train. This table includes both surrogate process monitoring
techniques and those monitoring processes deemed appropriate for determining actual
process integrity. Based on the information provided, monitoring of the ultrafiltration process
controls the overall train FRT and thus the proposed project requires at least 24 hours of
engineered storage buffer residence time before advanced-purified water can be introduced
into the distribution system.
Table 5.9
Process Monitoring Parameters for Advanced Treatment

Process
Monitoring Parameter
Secondary
TOC
Effluent
UV254
FRT(1)
Target
Frequency
< 10 mg/L
online
TBD(2)
online
Nitrate, max
< 10 mg/L as N
online
Total inorganic nitrogen

(24-hour average)
< 5 mg/L as N
online
Flow
<0.5 mgd
online
Ozone
O3:TOC Ratio(3)
0.5 to <1.0
online
Biofiltration
Turbidity
<0.3 NTU(4)
online
<5 mg/L
online
Direct integrity test
>4-log pass
daily
24-36 hours
Benchtop particle
counts
TBD(2)
2 per day
<24 hours*
Turbidity
TBD(2)
online
TOC
Ultrafiltration
April 2015
5-18
Table 5.9
Process Monitoring Parameters for Advanced Treatment

Target
Frequency
FRT(1)
UV intensity sensors
TBD
online
15 min*
Disinfection
UVT
>80%
online
15 min
Chemical
Cl2 residual at
2-3 mg/L as Cl2
online
15 min*
Disinfection
Storage tank inlet
Process
Monitoring Parameter
Ultraviolet
Notes:
(1) Failure Response Time. Only monitoring methods that are used to achieve LRVs are
associated with an FRT. The controlling FRT for each process is shown with an asterisk (*).
(2) To Be Determined.
(3) The ozone to TOC ratio (O3;TOC) range will be determined during pilot testing to maximize
pathogen and TOrC destruction while limiting bromate formation to acceptable levels.
(4) The filter effluent turbidity criterion proposed here is based on meeting the 95 percentile
combined filter effluent turbidity limit under the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (EPA, 2010).
Based on the DPR projects currently approved and operating in Texas, it is anticipated that
TCEQ will require a process monitoring scheme that is similar to the one proposed in
Table 5.9, though to date the TCEQ has not formally required a coupling of that monitoring
scheme to an engineered storage buffer. However, the project team considers the
implementation of an engineered storage buffer an appropriate and necessary safeguard
for the protection of public health.
Should in the future, monitoring methods be developed that reduce the overall process FRT
for ultrafiltration, a smaller storage tank could be considered.
5.2
DPR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND ELEMENTS
Advanced treatment for potable reuse, while critically important, is only one aspect of an
overall DPR project. This section discusses the surrounding project alternatives and
elements, including project location, source water considerations, pipelines, pumping, and
storage. All of these elements can affect project feasibility, cost, and, indirectly or directly,
the water quality produced by the DPR project as a whole.
On-site elements outside the scope of the advanced treatment train are shown in
Figure 5.4.
5.2.1
Project Location Alternatives
Two site locations for the implementation of an advanced treatment for DPR are considered
in this study: the existing South Regional Plant site, and an upstream site for which the
precise location has not yet been determined.
April 2015
5-19
5.2.1.1 South Regional Wastewater Treatment Site Location

The South Regional Plant site has a number of advantages. These include the existing
collection system and wastewater treatment infrastructure, having all the Citys treatment
facilities located in one central location, and the proximity of the DSWSC well field ground
storage tank, into which advanced-purified water could be introduced.
Based on the location of the subject tract of land made available for land application
disposal of effluent (see Chapter 6), this is also the only location for which land application
is considered.
5.2.1.2 Upstream Site Location
A second, conceptual, upstream site is also considered in this study. The treatment plants
(both wastewater and advanced treatment) would be located on a currently undeveloped
site at one of the proposed new developments near the City. Several actual sites have been
considered by the City but none have been confirmed for the purpose of this study.
Due to the undefined location of the upsteam site location, the geography-associated
project elements (mainly conveyance infrastructure) have been based on generic
assumptions and are subject to change depending on the final location selection, if an
upstream site is selected. The main components of the study, however, relate to on-site
elements necessary for DPR (advanced treatment and storage), which do not vary between
site locations at the level of planning implemented for this study.
In the following, more detailed assessments are made with respect to the South Regional
Plant site location and applied, as appropriate, to the upstream site.
5.2.2
Source Water Considerations
A detailed source water assessment is outside the scope of this study. However, the
following summarizes some of the items that should be addressed and/or confirmed for the
project to proceed.
As with any drinking water supply, one must consider and assess the source water
intended for potable consumption. For a DPR project, this goes beyond looking only at the
secondary effluent characteristics. In analogy to conventional drinking water sources,
sourced from watersheds, a sewershed assessment should be conducted to confirm the
nature of discharges into the Citys collection system. The current study presumes, based
on the limited existing commercial and absence of light and heavy industrial activity in the
Citys vicinity, that industrial discharges to the Citys collection system do not occur.
April 2015
5-20
5.2.3
Collection System Tie-In
If the project is located at the South Regional Plant site, which has been the basis for most
of the treatment assumptions discussed above, no additional work will be needed to tie into
the existing collection system, as it already conveys the full flow of the Citys wastewater to
the South Regional Plant.
For an upstream site location, a sewer force main would be constructed that pulled
wastewater from the existing lift station located in the Citys downtown area. An 8-inch PVC
sewer force main extending between 1 and 2 miles from the existing lift station to the
project site was assumed.
5.2.4
Wastewater Treatment Plant Requirements
Proposed wastewater treatment plant improvements at South Regional Plant are discussed
in Chapter 4.
For the upstream location, a completely new wastewater treatment plant would need to be
constructed. For costing purposes, a 0.5 mgd plant was sized based on industry standard
costs for a small-scale biological nutrient removal plant that would meet the same criteria as
the upgraded plant discussed in Chapter 4.
5.2.5
Considerations for Advanced Treatment Source Water
The existing South Regional Plant has a chlorine contact basin for wastewater disinfection
per TCEQ requirements (minimum of 20 min of contact time and 1 mg/L combined chlorine
residual). While this disinfection step is required for subsequent effluent disposal, it has the
potential to create problems for the downstream advanced treatment process in two
significant ways:
1.
The combination of effluent organic matter and free chlorine may create disinfection
byproducts that are not regulated for wastewater discharge but are regulated in
drinking water applications. Once formed, it is difficult to remove such disinfection
byproducts.
2.
The disinfectant residual that is required for effluent disposal would be detrimental to
the biological community within the biofilter that is responsible for significant organics
removal during advanced treatment. Recent pilot testing work performed at the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (in California) by Carollo as shown that TOC removal by
post-ozone biofilters in chlorinated effluent was reduced to 20%, whereas a robust
post-ozone biofilter is expected to remove 30-40% of TOC. The chlorine residual
could be chemically quenched, but any carry-over of the quenching agent would
negatively affect the effectiveness of the ozone process, such that avoiding the
chlorination step altogether is preferable.
April 2015
5-21
Based on these two factors, the project team recommends that effluent for advanced
treatment be sourced from the clarifier of the South Regional Plant before the chlorine
contact basin.
At an upstream site, the issue could be avoided altogether by implementing a different
mode of effluent disinfection, such as UV.
5.2.6
Storage Considerations
5.2.6.1 Effluent Storage

The separation of the effluent slated for advanced treatment and any effluent directed to
non-potable uses prior to the existing chlorination step at the South Regional Plant means
that two effluent storage tanks are necessary, one containing disinfected effluent slated for
disposal and/or non-potable uses, and one containing undisinfected effluent for advanced
treatment.
This would be needed as a backup option, even if all the effluent were slated for advanced
treatment and subsequent potable reuse. In the event of a precautionary process or
maintenance shut-down, undisinfected effluent from might need to be redirected back
through the chlorine contact basin and into the existing effluent storage tank prior to
disposal. However, given that significant disinfection activity occurs in most of the
downstream advanced treatment processes that would easily allow the water to meet
numerical pathogen standards for discharge or Type I reuse, TCEQ may allow the water to
be discharged without returning it to the chlorine contact basin.
For non-potable uses, the updates proposed in the permit amendment application are
assumed to proceed with the installation of cloth filters for effluent filtration. A second
effluent storage tank (333,000 gallons) and an effluent pump station, as proposed in
Amendment No. 1, are also assumed to be available (see Figure 5.4) and not separately
addressed in the cost estimate for this report.
Proposed disinfected and undisinfected effluent flow paths and return loops are shown
conceptually in Figure 5.4.
A similar scheme would be implemented at an upstream site but is not explicitly considered
as part of this study.
5.2.6.2 Inter-Process Storage
The inter-process storage tank, currently proposed at 100,000 gallon capacity, is discussed
as part of advanced treatment in Section 5.1.
April 2015
5-22
5.2.6.3 Finished Water Storage

The finished water storage tank proposed for this project serves two important purposes:
1.
It serves as a reservoir for finished water that can be metered into an existing
distribution system storage tank (the existing ground storage tank located at the
DSWSC well field, for example).
2.
More importantly, it serves as an engineered storage buffer, or ESB. As discussed in

Section 0, the concept of an ESB was developed to help mitigate the increased risk to
public health derived from the close coupling of wastewater and water in a DPR
scenario. Per the analysis provided in that section, at minimum 24 hours worth of
retention time is needed to meet storage requirements.
Assuming a ground storage tank with 3-4 baffles results in a T10 baffling factor of 0.5. That
means the minimum total storage volume needed is 1 million gallons (MG, based on
0.5 mgd * 24 hours / 0.5 * 1 day/24 hours). The tank currently proposed for this study is
sized for the minimum volume of 1 MG. Once actual flows approach the 0.5 mgd design
flow, an updated assessment of storage requirements per Section 0 should be conducted to
determine if additional storage is advisable.
5.2.7
Drinking Water Distribution Tie-In
For both the South Regional Plant site and an upstream project location, water must be
conveyed between the finished water storage tank and the point at which the water is
introduced into the existing drinking water distribution system serving the City.
For the South Regional Plant site, the necessary infrastructure includes a 0.5 mgd high
service pump station and an 8-inch PVC water line with a cost allowance for a tunneled and
cased crossing of Onion Creek to reach the existing DSWSC tank located north of the
wellfield.
For an upstream location, the requirements are less well defined. For the purposes of this
study, a 0.5 mgd high service pump station, approximately one mile of 8-inch PVC pipe and
one tunneled and cased highway crossing were assumed. A pre-existing distribution
system water storage tank into which the pipeline would tie was assumed.
5.2.8
Effluent Disposal Infrastructure
5.2.8.1 Infrastructure for Effluent Discharge at South Regional Plant Site

Discharge from the South Regional Plant Site can be either by gravity through an outfall
directly into Onion Creek, or by pumping to a different site for discharge. For the purpose of
this evaluation, the pumping scenario was assumed to be conservative.
April 2015
5-23
5.2.8.2 Infrastructure for Effluent Discharge at Upstream Project Location

For an upstream project location, a gravity outfall from the new WWTP to an adjacent
drainage channel is assumed. This channel would eventually drain to Onion Creek.
Therefore, the outfall structure is the only cost item associated with effluent discharge at an
upstream project location site.
5.2.8.3 Land Application Infrastructure
The infrastructure needed at the land application site is discussed in detail in Chapter 6. In
addition to the on-site requirements (storage pond and irrigation infrastructure), an effluent
pump station and 8 inch transmission main to the spray irrigation site would be required.
5.2.9
Ancillary Project Elements
A detailed analysis and cost estimate of on-site civil, electrical, mechanical, piping, and
pumping, is beyond the scope of this study. Standard cost multipliers were used to account
for these project elements. The advanced treatment building was sized generously based
on basic equipment layouts (not provided).
All advanced treatment cost estimates are based on the South Regional Plant location, but
at the level of detail provided are equally applicable to an upstream site.
5.3
DISCUSSION OF INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE
Typically, an indirect (potable) reuse project involves augmentation of a source water with
reclaimed water that can then be withdrawn at a later time for potable use. These can be
divided into surface water augmentation and groundwater augmentation projects.
Augmentation of Onion Creek and augmentation of local groundwater are discussed in the
following.
5.3.1
Augmentation of Onion Creek
Surface water augmentation IPR projects are permitted based on water quality
requirements for discharge into the receiving water body (in this case, Onion Creek) and an
allocation of water rights to the augmented flows provided via the discharge conveyed
through a bed and banks permit. Hence, the water quality of the effluent needed for IPR
via Onion Creek is anticipated to be very similar to that anticipated for a discharge
permitted as a backup option to a DPR project. A detailed permitting analysis of indirect
reuse is not within the scope of this study.
From a technical perspective, surface water augmentation projects are typically most
successful for larger water bodies (reservoirs or larger rivers) that have continuous flow
from which water can be withdrawn. Therefore, indirect potable reuse via discharge and
subsequent withdrawal from Onion Creek, a low- and intermittent-flow watercourse, would
be a challenge and is not further considered as part of this study.
April 2015
5-24
5.3.2
Groundwater Augmentation
An evaluation of potable reuse via groundwater augmentation is wholly outside the scope of
this study and therefore only a short summary to illustrate the possibility is presented here.
Based on limited examples of groundwater augmentation with reclaimed water in Texas to
date, it is anticipated that advanced treatment to potable standards would be required for
augmentation of groundwater in an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) scheme, in which
the aquifer mainly serves as a storage reservoir for excess water banked in times of
plenty and withdrawn for potable use as the need arises.
It is possible that this could be accomplished by augmenting the aquifer from which the
existing DSWSC wells currently draw, though a detailed hydrogeological study would need
to be conducted to verify this. Even if technically feasible, injection of even advancedtreated water into the protected Edwards Aquifer (or even through it, in order to reach the
deeper Trinity Aquifer) may be difficult.
April 2015
5-25
Chapter 6
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

6.1
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL OVERVIEW
The most common permit for large volume wastewater discharge is the Texas Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit that allows for treated effluent to be
discharged directly into a receiving water body. The alternative to TPDES permits for
effluent disposal is the Texas Land Application Permit (TLAP). The TLAP permit allows for
wastewater effluent to be land applied rather than released into waters of the state.
6.1.1
TPDES Permitting
The TPDES permit refers to a wastewater discharge permit regulated by the TCEQ in which
wastewater effluent is discharged into a water of the state (TCEQ, 2014).
Should surface discharge be selected as a means of backup effluent disposal for the
project, Onion Creek is the proposed receiving water body for effluent from the project.
Onion Creek is a small tributary of the Colorado River near Dripping Springs, which begins
12 milers southeast of Johnson City and flows approximately 79 miles eastward to the
Colorado River (Texas State Historical Association, 2013). Portions of Onion Creek,
including those downstream of Dripping Springs, are located within the recharge and
contributing zones of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. To date, the
TCEQ has issued only one TPDES permit within the recharge and contributing zones of the
Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards (Hays County Water Quality Control and
Improvement District No. 1, permit no. WQ0014293001, which permits discharge to Bear
Creek, a tributary of Onion Creek).
6.1.2
TLAP Permitting
Effluent disposal under a TLAP permit has been the primary means of effluent disposal in
the recharge and contributing zones of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer,
including the area around Dripping Springs. This is because the land-applied effluent
receives additional treatment from the plant roots and the soil column before infiltration. In
addition, the vegetative cover removes water by means of evapotranspiration and converts
nutrients and other constituents via plant uptake and biodegradation.
April 2015
6-1
6.2
EVALUATION OF LAND APPLICATION
As part of the current study, the project team was tasked with evaluating land application as
a disposal alternative for up to 0.5 mgd of wastewater effluent. While current effluent flows
produced by the City at its South Regional Plant are still significantly below this level, the
City anticipates that 0.5 mgd effluent flow will be reached in the foreseeable future. The
purpose of this evaluation is to determine the feasibility and cost implications of developing
a land application program that will meet this 0.5 mgd design flow based on a specific
parcel of land made available by a private party for this purpose.
6.2.1
Regulation
The TCEQ has established standards for the design of surface application systems as
presented in Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 309 (30 TAC 309).
Chapter 309 specifies the required criteria for (1) sizing the spray field, (2) determining the
application rate, and (3) calculating the volume of effluent storage required. Additional
guidance is provided by TCEQ in the form of instructions for completing domestic
wastewater permit applications (Form TCEQ-10053-Instruction). Any owner of a
municipal/domestic facility that generates wastewater discharge authorization from the
TCEQ to dispose of wastewater adjacent to waters in the state by direct discharge (TPDES)
or by irrigation, evaporation, or subsurface disposal (TLAP) mush apply for a permit.
Dripping Springs, in its current capacity to dispose of wastewater through drip-irrigation
methods, has an existing TLAP permit that would be amended to include this land
application phase, if desired.
6.3
SUBJECT TRACT PROPOSED FOR LAND APPLICATION
The subject tract for the proposed land application is approximately 186 total acres. With
access to the property off FM150, the tract is approximately 7,000 feet directly east of the
existing South Regional Plant. The location of the subject tract relative to the South
Regional Plant is shown in Figure 6.1.
With the exception of an approximated 50 ft. aerial easement (6.6 acres) traversing through
the main body of the tract, the canopy is uniformly dense with cedar trees. The easement
area has been cleared and can easily be seen in aerial imagery. Topography of the tract
generally slopes downward south east but is rather non-uniform. The tract is located at
approximate Latitude: 30 9'37.54"N Longitude: 98 3'22.65"W.
April 2015
6-2
Option 2
Effluent Storage Pond
Onsite Drip
Irrigation Site
Existing WWTP
Site
Proposed Land
Application Site
Option 1
Onion Creek
Legend
Proposed Treated Effluent
Transmission Line (8-inch PVC)
Major Irrigation Line
Irrigated Areas
Easement Access (No
Sanitary Sewer
Water Distribution System

100-Year FEMA Floodplain
0.1
0.2
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and
the GIS User Community
INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW FOR CANOPY SPRAY IRRIGATION
0.4
Miles
FIGURE 6.1
6.4
LAND APPLICATION CALCULATIONS
The ability of a tract of land to support land application of effluent is determined by its ability
to absorb water, nitrogen, and salts. Mass balance calculations for each of these
substances form the basis of TPDES permitting. The following sections describe the
approach taken by the project team to calculate these mass balances and determine if, and
how, the subject tract could support land application of 0.5 mgd effluent form the South
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Detailed calculations and the tables referenced in this section are provided in Appendix C.
6.4.1
TABLE C-1 - A First Look (30 TAC 285 Method)
A first look screening methodology for land application is provided in 30 TAC 285 relating
to On-Site Sewage Facilities. The basis for this approach is a map (30 TAC 285.90(1))
showing estimates for maximum application rates for surface application of treated effluent
across the State of Texas. This map has been reproduced in Figure 6.2.
The parameters for this method are presented in Table C-1. This calculation relies on a
total usable irrigation area calculated as detailed in Table C-2, and a maximum surface
application rate of 0.0545 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf). This was determined by
locating Hays County on Figure 6.2 and averaging the two zone line values (0.045 and
0.064). By using this simplistic approach as a first evaluation, the estimated daily disposal
volume of the tract was determined to be 397,000 gallons per day.
6.4.2
TABLE C-2 - Detailed Water Balance
The Chapter 285 first-look methodology (above) provided the first evaluation of a possible
disposal volume. Through detailed monthly water balance calculations (Table C-2 and
Table C-3), a more comprehensive approach was also considered. The site-specific crop
data, curve number, evaporation, and pond storage volume were used to verify that a
higher surface application rate could be achieved. Although the first-look spreadsheet
(Table C-1) indicated a maximum disposal volume of less than 0.4 mgd, the use of sitespecific data and an increased storage volume supported a design flow of 0.5 MGD.
The full suite of parameters used for the calculations are shown in Appendix C.
April 2015
6-4
DISPOSAL APPLICATION RATES FOR TEXAS

(30 TAC 285.90 FIGURE (1))
FIGURE 6.2
6.4.2.1 Water Balance Parameter Assumptions

The monthly water balance calculations (Table C-2), the required computations confirming
that the subject tract of land could support a land application. The maximum application rate
is governed by the size and parameters of the subject tract of land (such as the curve
number, the conductivity values, and the canopy density). By using the monthly water
balance spreadsheet, an average precipitation, average runoff, average infiltration rate, and
average evapotranspiration rate was determined. By determining the total water needs (in
inches) per square foot, the maximum amount of effluent allowable was calculated as the
maximum application rate. The maximum application rate was calculated as 0.11 gpd/sf.
Assumptions upon which selected parameters were based are explained in the following.
Curve Number
A curve number (CN) of 73 was determined based the hydrologic soil group designation for
the greater Austin Area and a determination that the subject tract represented Pinyonjuniper woods with fair hydrologic condition. Per TCEQ guidance, the CN can be looked up
based on these parameters in a USDA publication (USDA, 1986; see Table 2.2-d), which
also classifies the Austin area with a hydrologic soil group designation of C (USDA, 1986;
see 1986 Appendix A-1).
Conductivity Parameters
The effluent water conductivity (CE) was estimated based on conversion of a single
available effluent TDS measurement of 600 parts per million (ppm), collected in February
2014. Using a conversion factor of 670 ppm TDS per milliMho per centimeter (mMho/cm)
mMho/cm results in CE = 0.9 mMho/cm. A value of 1.0 mMho/cm was used to be
conservative.
The assumed allowable conductivity (CL) was determined based on the salinity tolerance of
Cedar (Ashe Juniper). Per 30 TAC 309.20, Table 3, relatively salt tolerant crops can
tolerate an EC of between 6.0 mMho/cm and 8.0 mMho/cm. A maximum limit of 7.0
mMho/cm was assumed.
Usable Irrigation Area
Usable irrigation area of 160 acres was determined based on the total acreage of the
subject tract of land (186 acres), an assumption of 95% canopy density, and subtraction of
space devoted to the effluent holding pond surface area (10.74 acres, calculated as
described in Table C-6) and to an existing cleared power line easement running across the
property (6.6 acres, see Figure 6.1).
April 2015
6-6
Irrigation Efficiency
An irrigation efficiency (K) of 75% was determined based on the use of permanent
sprinklers for canopy spray irrigation, which have a range of efficiencies between 70% and
80% (Solomon, 1986). Thus the average efficiency was assumed.
Precipitation
Precipitation data was collected from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB, 2015)
and combined into a monthly historic table of monthly precipitation from 1940 to 2013 (~60
years). Monthly averages were calculated over this time period and are shown in Table C-2
(Column 2).
Evapotranspiration
Specific evapotranspiration values (ETs) for Cedar (Ashe Juniper) were not located for this
project. Instead, average ET values for the Austin area were used (TAMUAE, 2013). Based
on field data collected in the Edwards Plateau, removal of Ashe Juniper and
reestablishment of native grasslands results in 1.5 inches to 2.4 inches of additional
runoff/infiltration per year (Conner et al, 2009).
Taking 2 inches as a round number within that range, that represents 6% of the total
average annual precipitation in the Austin area (34.2 inches). Therefore, a correction factor
of 6% was applied to the ETs in Table C-2 (Column 5) to account for the additional ET
attributed to Cedar compared to native grasslands.
Evaporation from Reservoir Surface
Evaporation data was collected from the TWDB (2015).
6.4.3
TABLE C-3 - Calculating the Volume of Effluent Storage Required
The volume of effluent storage required was determined based on the accumulated storage
values (Column 20) in Table C-3. The storage volume calculation was calculated by taking
the effluent applied to the land (Column 13) as calculated from the water balance in
Table C-2, the maximum rainfall event (Column 14B) and the minimum evaporation event
(Column 18B) to determine the required storage per month (Column 19). The accumulated
storage (Column 20) sums the accumulated monthly storage and calculates the storage (in
ac-ft) required for the property. The storage duration (days) is also calculated.
For a 0.5 mgd design flow, the storage requirement was calculated to be 87 days, resulting
in a required storage volume of 134 ac-ft.
April 2015
6-7
6.4.4
TABLE C-4 Nitrogen Uptake Calculations
Nitrogen uptake calculations were also completed to verify that the subject tract of land
could support the applied nitrogen loading proposed. Based on the assumed average daily
flow of 0.5 mgd with an effluent total nitrogen concentration of 10 mg/L (assumed
conservatively based the DPR water quality goal of 5 mg/L discussed in Chapter 3), the
estimated total nitrogen applied was about 15,000 pounds per year (lbs/yr).
An estimated 150 lbs/yr per acre nitrogen uptake was assumed for Cedar woodlands as a
conservative estimate based on the range of nitrogen uptake amounts given for mature
forests of various types (Fedler et al., 2006; see Table 5.1), the minimum area required to
assimilate 15,000 lbs/yr total nitrogen was calculated as slightly more than 100 acres.
Because the tract of land is larger than 100 acres, the nitrogen uptake will not be the
limiting factor for the maximum application rate. Note that this calculation assumes
treatment upgrades to the existing South Regional Plant necessary for a DPR project.
Current effluent nitrogen concentrations are significantly higher and would likely become a
limiting factor in the absence of these upgrades.
6.4.5
TABLE C-5 Storage Pond Volume Calculation
The storage pond dimensions are calculated in Table C-5 and are based on achievable
pond depth (assumed to be 15 ft), side slopes (assumed at 4:1), and free board (assumed
at 1 ft). These parameters coupled with the required volume (134 ac-ft minimum) were used
to determine the pond property dimensions A, B, and L. The approximated dimensions of A,
B, and L were determined to be 750 ft, 750 ft, and 715 ft, respectively. The usable volume
for the pond does not include the freeboard volume, as the freeboard volume is considered
a safety factor. Per rule, a 10 ft berm around the pond is required for access and was
included in the total area calculations. This should be increased to 20 ft (for truck access) if
the pond will be located near a property line. The total footprint of the pond was calculated
to be 12.3 acres.
6.4.6
Costs
A planning-level cost estimate for the on-site portions of a land-application disposal is

presented in Table C-6. A detailed layout of the irrigation system was not completed for this
high-level analysis. Instead, a series of irrigation infrastructure parameters were used to
determine the approximate quantity of each item based on the total irrigated acreage.
The sprinkler heads required for the irrigated area was determined by taking the Total
Irrigated Area and dividing it by the lateral and main sprinkler spacing. Subsequently, the
total polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) flex pipe needed was
assumed based on the amount of pipe required per zone. The excavation and geotextile
layers were assumed based on the design parameters of Table C-5 for the pond.
April 2015
6-8
Two alternative alignments are proposed for the pipeline to convey treated effluent from the
South Regional Plant to the subject tract for spray irrigation, Option 1 and Option 2. Option
1 represents a longer alignment but requires less easement access, whereas Option 2
takes a shorter route but requires easement access to cross one or more properties. See
Figure 6.1 to compare the potential alignments.
The total on-site cost of land application infrastructure is estimated at approximately
$6 million. In addition, the cost of the conveyance infrastructure (pump station and pipeline
cost estimated for the alignment corresponding to Option 1) was estimated just under
$2 million, for a total of approximately $8 million (see also Table 6.1). The on-site and
conveyance costs are listed separately in Chapter 7, where the total cost of each proposed
project alternative is presented.
6.4.7
Discussion of Findings and Land Application Alternatives
The monthly water balance calculations (Table C-2) and the storage volume calculations
(Table C-3) indicate that the subject tract of land could feasibly support a design flow of
0.5 mgd. Table C-4 (Nitrogen Uptake Calculations) also confirmed that the tract could
support the nitrogen loading at a 10 mg/L total nitrogen effluent concentration.
The subject tract, however, is not an ideal candidate for a 0.5 mgd design flow as
evidenced by the long storage requirement that results in a large (and costly) storage pond.
Increasing the storage requirements also decreases the acreage of the tract available for
irrigation (because the pond surface area increases), which iteratively increase the amount
of storage required. By increasing the total tract area available for irrigation or by lowering
the design flow, the volume of the storage pond could be decreased. Table 6.1 shows a
summary of the baseline scenario described in the sections above and documented in
Appendix C. In addition, Table 6.1 shows the results of several other exploratory scenarios
in which either the application rate and/or the available irrigation area are varied.
6.4.8
Other Notes
The design of land application systems is based on long-term average climate data.
Calculations based on this long-term data are done to determine the spray field size,
application rate, and volume of required effluent storage. Although the calculations Carollo
performed are considered conservative and utilized maximums and minimums over the
course of ~60 year, past measurements are not a guarantee on future conditions.
April 2015
6-9
Table 6.1
Alternative Scenarios for Land Application

Design
Flow
(mgd)
Total Usable
Irrigation
Area (ac)
Baseline (186 acres total

tract area at 0.5 mgd flow)
0.5
159
134
87
$8,067,000
100-acre storage by
varying irrigation area
0.5
268
100
65
$7,150,000
60-day storage by varying

irrigation area
0.5
300
92
60
$6,882,000

design flow
0.27
166
49
60
$3,895,000

design flow
0.18
169
16
30
$2,261,000
Scenario(1)
Storage
Required
(ac-ft) (days)
Planning-Level
(2)
Project Cost
Notes:
(1) Baseline scenario calculation tables are included in Appendix C. Other scenario calculations
are not included.
(2) Planning level project costs include on-site costs for the effluent holding pond and the land
application infrastructure as calculated by the tables shown in Appendix C, plus the cost of
the pump station and pipeline to convey treated effluent from the South Regional Plant Site,
as estimated in Chapter 7 (and scaled linearly in reduced flow scenarios). The same
multipliers are applied as for the project alternative cost estimates provided in Chapter 7
(30% unidentified project elements, 15% contractor overhead, profit, and risk, and 15%
engineering, legal and administrative fees). Costs shown do not include the cost of land.
6.5
DISCHARGE
The discussion of discharge alternatives is limited to a technical evaluation of achieving

anticipated water quality requirements and the infrastructure necessary to deliver water to a
suitable point of discharge. A detailed discussion of the effort required for TPDES permitting
is not within the scope of this study.
6.5.1
Water Quality Requirements for Discharge
The water quality requirements for discharge are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Section 3.3 discusses anticipated nutrient goal concentrations (6 mg/L total nitrogen and
0.5 mg/L total phosphorus) as well as the fact that solids and organics loading should not
be limiting factors once biological treatment is implemented for nutrient removal and cloth
filters are in place to control solids in the effluent.
April 2015
6-10
6.5.2
Discharge Infrastructure
The infrastructure required for discharge is discussed as part of the project alternatives
descriptions in Chapter 5. Section 5.2.8 describes the infrastructure needs anticipated for
each of the two potential outfall locations, both of which eventually discharge into Onion
Creek. In each case, the discharge infrastructure needs are assumed to be limited to the
construction of gravity outfall structures.
April 2015
6-11
Chapter 7
PLANNING LEVEL COST ANALYSIS

7.1
APPROACH TO COST ANALYSIS
In this chapter, all of the project elements discussed in previous chapters are assembled
into three main conceptual project alternatives, two of which are divided into subalternatives. Planning-level cost estimates are calculated for each project element and then
the cost for each project alternative is determined as a sum of the cost associated with
each applicable project element. For each Project Alternative, an overview of the elements
included in the alternative is followed by tables that provide capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
The cost estimates provided in this chapter are considered Class 4 Budget Estimates as
defined by the AACE International's Revised Classification (1999) with an expected
accuracy range of +30 percent or -15 percent. These cost estimates are based upon the
Engineer's perception of current conditions in the project area and are subject to change as
variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others or
economic conditions occur. Since the Engineer has no control over these factors, she
cannot warrant or guarantee that actual bids will not vary from the costs presented herein.
These estimates do, however, reflect the Engineer's professional opinion of accurate costs
at this time.
Due to this level of planning, these costs are escalated with a standard 30% added
multiplier for unidentified project elements. Due to its unique application, the advanced
treatment process was evaluated in more detail than the remainder of the project elements,
therefore a lower 15% added multiplier for unidentified elements has been included for that
portion of the project cost. Standard planning-level multipliers for contractor overhead and
profit (15%) and engineering and legal services (15%) are also included.
April 2015
7-1
7.2
DPR AT SOUTH REGIONAL PLANT SITE WITH DISCHARGE
Alternative 1 consists of DPR at the South Regional Plant Site with backup discharge to a
drainage feature that discharges into Onion Creek. The project elements associated with
this alternative include
1.
Upgrades to the existing South Regional Plant:

a.
For Alternative 1a, these upgrades are based on the analysis provided in
Chapter 4 (and further documented in Appendix B) for biological nutrient
removal retrofits;
b.
For Alternative 1b, a previously proposed MBR retrofit (CMA, 2012) to
achieve the same water quality goals;
2.
Advanced treatment and engineered storage buffer;
3.
Infrastructure to connect finished water to the DSWSC wellfield storage tank; and
4.
An outfall structure constructed at the proposed Caliterra effluent holding pond. This
discharge alternative assumes an existing effluent pump station and pipeline
associated with the 210 reuse at Caliterra proposed as part of Amendment No. 1 to
the existing TLAP permit.
Table 7.1
Alternative 1A Capital Costs

Description
Total
Upgrades to Existing WWTP for Biological Nutrient Removal
$426,000
Advanced Treatment Facilities and Engineered Storage Buffer
$4,821,000
Connection to Existing Water Infrastructure
$462,000
Discharge Structure
$75,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST
$5,784,000
Unidentified Project Elements

All but Advanced Treatment System
30%
$289,000
Advanced Treatment System
15%
$723,000
Subtotal
General Contractor Overhead, Profit & Risk
$6,796,000
15%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
April 2015
$1,019,000
$7,815,000
15%
$1,172,000
$8,987,000
7-2
Table 7.2
Alternative 1A Operation and Maintenance Costs

Description
Total
WWTP with Biological Nutrient Removal
$62,000
Advanced Treatment Facilities
$104,000
Advanced Treatment Facilities Operations Staff
$368,000
$5,000
Outfall Structure
$0
Annual O&M Cost
Table 7.3
$539,000
Alternative 1B Capital Costs

Description
Total
Existing WWTP Upgraded to Membrane Bioreactor
$4,084,000
Advanced Treatment Facilities (without UF) and Engineered

Storage Buffer
$4,821,000
$462,000
Outfall Structure
$75,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST
$9,442,000

30%
$1,387,000
15%
$723,000
Subtotal
$11,552,000
15%

April 2015
$1,733,000
$13,285,000
15%
$1,993,000
$15,278,000
7-3
Table 7.4
Alternative 1B Operation and Maintenance Costs

Description
Total
WWTP with Membrane Bioreactor
$104,000
Advanced Treatment Facilities (without UF)

$65,000
$368,000
$5,000
Outfall Structure
Annual O&M Cost
7.3
$0
$542,000
DPR WITH LAND APPLICATION
Alternative 2 consists of DPR at the South Regional Plant Site with backup land application
of the effluent to the subject tract discussed in Chapter 6. The project elements associated
with this alternative are similar to those for Alternative 1, except for effluent disposal:
1.
Upgrades to the existing South Regional Plant based on the analysis provided in
Chapter 4 (and further documented in Appendix B) for biological nutrient removal;
2.
3.
Infrastructure to connect finished water to the DSWSC wellfield storage tank;
4.
Effluent pump station and pipeline to convey effluent to land application site along
two potential alignments (Option 1 and Option 2, forming Alternatives 2a and 2b,
respectively); and
5.
Land application infrastructure, including effluent holding pond and sprinkler system.
April 2015
7-4
Table 7.5
Alternative 2A Capital Costs

Description
Total
$426,000
Advanced Treatment Facilities and Engineered Storage

Buffer
$4,821,000
$462,000
Connection to Land Application Infrastructure (Option 1, see

Figure 6.1)
$1,065,000
Land Application Infrastructure
$3,627,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST
$10,401,000

30%
$1,674,000
15%
$723,000
Subtotal
$12,798,000
15%

April 2015
$1,920,000
$14,718,000
15%
$2,208,000
$16,926,000
7-5
Table 7.6
Alternative 2B Capital Costs

Description
Total
$426,000
$4,821,000
$462,000
Pumping Finished Water to DSWSC Wells

Connection to Land Application Infrastructure
(Option 2, see Figure 6.1)
$912,000
$3,627,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST
$10,248,000

30%
$1,629,000
15%
$723,000
Subtotal
$12,600,000
15%

Table 7.7
$1,890,000
$14,490,000
15%
$2,174,000
$16,664,000
Alternatives 2A and 2B Operation and Maintenance Costs

Description
Total
$62,000
$104,000
$368,000

Pumping Effluent to Land Application Site
$5,000
$6,000
$120,000
Annual O&M Cost
$665,000
April 2015
7-6
7.4
DPR AT UPSTREAM SITE
Alternative 3 consists of DPR at the upstream site with backup discharge to a drainage
feature that discharges into Onion Creek. The project elements associated with this
alternative include
1.
Collection system tie-in from existing downtown booster pump station;
2.
A new wastewater treatment plant with biological nutrient removal to meet the same
effluent water quality goals as discussed in Chapter 3;
3.
4.
Infrastructure to connect finished water to a presumed existing distribution system

water storage tank; and
5.
A gravity outfall structure that discharges effluent into an adjacent drainage channel
that eventually discharges into Onion Creek.
Table 7.8
Alternative 3 Capital Costs

Description
Total
Sewer Infrastructure
$655,000
New Wastewater Treatment Plant
$4,000,000
$4,821,000
$687,000
Outfall Structure
$117,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST
$9,625,000

30%
$1,628,000
15%
$723,000
Subtotal
$11,986,000
15%

April 2015
$1,798,000
$13,784,000
15%
$2,068,000
$15,582,000
7-7
Table 7.9
Alternative 3 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Description
Sewer Infrastructure (not included)
Total
$0
$62,000
$104,000
Advanced Treatment Facilities Operations Staffing
$368,000

Outfall Structure
Annual O&M Cost
7.5
$7,000
$0
$541,000
COST COMPARISON
A final cost comparison between the five alternatives evaluated for planning level cost is
provided in Table 7.10. As shown, Alternative 1a is the most economical alternative for the
implementation of DPR, based on the assumptions and limitations provided in this report.
Subject to the same limitations, Table 7.10 shows that the increase in capital cost
associated with electing to dispose of effluent from the South Regional Plant Site via land
application at the subject tract discussed in Chapter 6 rather than discharge it to a drainage
channel that flows into Onion Creek is approximately $8 million, and the operation and
maintenance cost premium of doing so is approximately $126,000 per year.
Implementing DPR at an upstream site would require more capital investment due to the
cost of constructing a new wastewater treatment plant.
The total cost to produce water is shown in the last two columns of Table 7.10. It is
important to note that these costs include the cost of wastewater treatment, which is
typically not included in the cost of water for a DPR project. The cost of water shown for
Alternatives 1A, 2A and 2B, which include only a small retrofit cost for the existing
wastewater treatment plant but do include the O&M cost to maintain the full plant, are most
representative of the cost to produce water from a given effluent.
April 2015
7-8
Table 7.10
Alt
Comparison of Costs for the Proposed Project Alternatives

Total Cost of Water
Capital
($MM)
Debt Service
($MM/yr)(2)
O&M
($MM/yr)
($/ac-ft)
($/kgal)
1A
8.9
0.7
0.54
2,250
6.90
1B
15.3
1.2
0.54
3,157
9.69
2A
16.9
1.4
0.67
3,612
11.08
2B
16.7
1.3
0.67
3,575
10.97
15.8
1.3
0.54
3,237
9.93
(1)
Notes:
(1) Alternatives:
1A DPR at South Regional Plant Site with BNR retrofits and effluent discharge
2B DPR at South Regional Plant Site with MBR retrofits and effluent discharge
2A DPR at South Regional Plant Site with BNR retrofits and effluent land application (Option
1)
2B DPR at South Regional Plant Site with BNR retrofits and effluent land application (Option
2)
3 DPR at Upstream Site with new BNR plant and effluent discharge
(2) The annual cost of debt service is calculated from the capital cost based on a 20-year project
life at a 5% annual discount rate.
Another important observation is that the cost of operation and maintenance (O&M)
represents a significant fraction of the overall cost of water, ranging from over 30% for
Alternative 1A to about 25% for Alternative 3. The high O&M cost estimates are due in large
part to the cost of paying for 24-hour, 7-days per week operational staff presence at the
advanced treatment facility (see Tables 7.2, 7.4, 7.7, and 7.9).
Costs associated with operator staffing are not anticipated to change significantly with the
size of the plant within the size range that is realistic for the City. At a higher design flow
rate, the relative cost of operator staffing would diminish proportionally. The converse is
also true: at lower flow rates, the cost of staffing the plant for 24/7 operation would become
proportionally larger.
April 2015
7-9
Chapter 8
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

8.1
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility, treatment requirements, and
planning level cost for developing a direct potable reuse (DPR) project to supplement
drinking water supplies in Dripping Springs and to minimize or eliminate the need for
discharge of treated wastewater. As a corollary to these goals, the project team was also
tasked with evaluating effluent disposal alternatives, specifically discharge to Onion Creek
and land application at a specific land application site, for feasibility and estimated cost.
This report discusses regulatory (Chapter 2) and water quality requirements (Chapter 3) for
a DPR project and how these can be achieved through treatment upgrades at the existing
South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (Chapter 4) and advanced treatment and
storage of advanced purified water prior to distribution (Chapter 5). Effluent disposal
alternatives are evaluated in detail (Chapter 6). Finally, project alternatives composed of all
the elements discussed in Chapters 4 through 6 were assembled and evaluated for
planning-level capital, operation and maintenance costs (Chapter 7).
Based on this evaluation, DPR is feasible for the City. Land application of 0.5 mgd treated
effluent at the proposed tract of land is also feasible. However, the total project cost of the
land application infrastructure exceeds the cost of constructing a simple outfall structure for
discharge by nearly $8 million. This figure does not include the cost of land. Operation and
maintenance costs for the land application option include maintenance of the pump station,
pipeline, and irrigation facilities, for a total of approximately $126,000 per year, whereas an
outfall, as a passive concrete structure, is associated with minimal maintenance once built.
The most cost-effective project option of those considered in Chapter 7 is Alternative 1A,
which includes minor retrofits to the existing South Regional Plant, subsequent ozonebiofiltration based advanced treatment, and engineered storage at the South Regional Plant
Site. Given the extent of treatment required for such a project and the need to have on-site
operations staff dedicated to the South Regional Plant Site at all times (24/7), the estimated
cost of water produced ($2,250 per acre-foot or $6.9 per 1,000 gallons) is relatively high.
It would be appropriate to compare this cost to the wholesale cost of water the DSWSC
sells. However, due to the significant fees paid for new connections (NewGen, 2015), and
the mix of well water and PUA water sources, it is difficult to determine a definitive
wholesale cost of water. For one point of comparison, the estimated cost of water from
Alternative 1A is still below the average retail price paid by DSWSC customers at $8.50 per
1,000 gallons (calculated based on dividing the volume of water sold in 2014 by the 2014
revenue; NewGen, 2015; see Table 2).
April 2015
8-1
In the face of dwindling conventional water supplies and the associated increasing costs of
water, the value of a water supply that is under local control and drought-proof, such as that
sourced from a DPR project, is difficult to quantify but certainly significant. The City must
now evaluate whether this value is sufficient to justify proceeding with the project.
8.2
NEXT STEPS
If the City decides to pursue a DPR project, a number of steps will be needed before the
project could proceed to detailed design and construction. These include the following
actions that could be undertaken immediately:
1.
Complete wastewater plant retrofits for biological nutrient removal. This would
include the following items:
a.
Sampling of selected water quality parameters;
b.
Detailed design of retrofit; and
c.
Implementation of the retrofit.
2.
Pursue an effluent disposal alternative. This action is independent of other steps but
necessary to successful completion of a DPR project.
3.
Pursue a proactive public participation program. A discussion of the role of public

perception in DPR projects was outside the scope of this report. However, a large
body of literature and resources exist to support the development of public outreach
programs for potable reuse projects.
Once the wastewater treatment plant retrofits are completed, the following subsequent
steps can then be completed:
4.
Characterize the upgraded wastewater treatment plants effluent water quality. This
would include the following items:
a.
Prepare an effluent characterization sample plan;
b.
Obtain TCEQ approval for the effluent characterization plan; and
c.
Collect samples and evaluate results.
5.
Perform preliminary engineering for the proposed advanced treatment facility based
on effluent water quality results and the initial sizing completed for this report.
6.
Pilot testing of the proposed treatment process. This includes the following items:
a.
Develop a pilot testing protocol;
b.
Obtain TCEQ approval for the pilot testing protocol;
c.
Perform pilot testing; and
d.
Refine preliminary engineering of the treatment process based on pilot

testing results.
April 2015
8-2
Chapter 9
REFERENCES
9.1
REFERENCES
Azadpour-Keeley, A., B. Faulkner, and J. Chen. 2003. Movement and Longevity of Viruses
in the Subsurface. USEPA Ground Water Issue Report No. 540S03500.
Baronti, C., R. Curini, G. DAscenzo, A. DiCoricia, A. Gentili, and R. Samper. 2000.
Monitoring Natural and Synthetic Estrogens at Activated Sludge Sewage Treatment
Plants and in a Receiving River Water. Environ. Sci. Technol., 34(24): 5059-5066.
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2014. Groundwater Replenishment Using
Recycled Water. DPH-14-003E, dated June 18, 2014.
Carlyle, E., 2015. Forbes Magazine. Americas Fastest Growing Cities 2015, as accessed
on February 17, 2015 at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2015/01/27/americas-fastest-growing-cities2015/
CMA Engineering, Inc. (CMA), 2012. Email communication to City of Dripping Springs,
dated September 18, 2012.
CMA, 2013. The City of Dripping Springs, Hays County, South Regional Wastewater
System Expansion Planning Report, dated July 20, 2013.
CMA, 2014. Preliminary Engineering Report, Major Permit Amendment and Renewal,
February 2014.
Conner, R. W. Hamilton, and B. Wilcox, 2015. Increasing Water Yield in Texas, Summary
of technical report published by the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural
Resources, as accessed at http://water.okstate.edu/library/journalpublications/2009-pubs/2009 on March 25, 2015.
Dripping Springs Water Supply Corporation (DSWSC), 2015. About Dripping Springs WSC,
as accessed on February 16, 2015 at
http://www.drippingspringswater.com/about.html.
Fedler, Clifford B., John Borrelli, and Runbin Duan. 2006. "Manual for Designing Surface
Application of OSSF Wastewater Effluent." Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering (2006): 1-116 as accessed on March 6, 2015 at
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/compliance_support/regulatory
/ossf/FinalManualforDesigningSurf.application582-8-88017-Fedler.pdf.
Fono, L, E. Kolodziej, D. Sedlak. 2006. Attenuation of Wastewater-Derived Contaminants in
an Effluent-Dominated River. Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 72577262
April 2015
9-1
Gerringer et al., in prep. Equivalency of Advanced treatment Trains for Direct Potable
Reuse, Final Report to the WateReuse Research Foundation for Project No. 11-02,
in preparation.
Linden, K., A. Salveson, and J. Thurston. 2012. Innovative Treatment Technologies for
Reclaimed Water. WateReuse Research Foundation Project 02-009 Final Report,
Alexandria, VA.
Lovins, III, W., J. Taylor, and S. Hong. 2002. Microorganism Rejection by Membrane
Systems. Environ. Eng. Sci., 19(2): 453-465.
National Water Research Institute (NWRI). 2013. Independent Advisory Panel Final Report,
Examining the Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse. NWRI-2013-01, February, 2013.
NewGen Strategies & Solutions, 2015. Feasibility Study (Analysis of Consolidating Water
Utility Systems), draft report dated February 2, 2015.
Olivieri, A., E. Seto, J. Siller, and J. Crook, 2007. Application of Microbial Risk Assessment
Techniques to Estimate Risk Due to Exposure to Reclaimed Waters. WateReuse
Research Foundation Report 04-011, Alexandria, VA.
Plumlee, M. and M. Reinhard. 2007. Photochemical Attenuation of N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA) and other Nitrosamines in Surface Water, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
41(17):6170-6176.
Rose J.B., S.R. Farrah, V.J. Harwood A.D. Levine, J. Kukasik, P. Menendez, and T.M.,
Scott T.M. 2004. Reduction of Pathogens, Indicator Bacteria, and Alternative
Indicators by Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Processes. Report for Water
Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Salveson, A., J. Brown, Z. Zhou, and J. Lopez. 2010. Monitoring for Microconstituents in an
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility and Modeling Discharge of Reclaimed
Water to Surface Canals for Indirect Potable Reuse. WateReuse Research
Foundation Project 06-019, Final Report, Alexandria, VA.
Salveson, A., T. Rauch-Williams, E. Dickenson, J. Drewes, D. Drury, D. McAvoy, and S.
Snyder. 2012a. A Proposed Suite of Indicators for Assessing the Efficiency of
Secondary Treatment for the Removal of Organic Trace Compounds, Water
Environment Research Foundation Project CEC4R08 Final Report.
Schfer, A.I., A.G. Fane, and T.D. Waite, Eds. 2005. Nanofiltration, Principles and
Applications. Elsevier.
Schreffler, Curtis, and Galeone. 2005. "Effects of Spray-Irrigated Municipal Wastewater on
a Small Watershed in Chester County, Pennsylvania. U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet 2005-3092, as accessed on March 6, 2015 at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3092/fs2005-3092.pdf.
April 2015
9-2
Sedlak, D.L., and M. Kavanaugh. 2006. Removal and Destruction of NDMA and NDMA
Precursors during Wastewater Treatment. WateReuse Research Foundation Project
01-002 Final Report, Alexandria, VA.
Snyder, S., G. Korshin, D. Gerrity, and E. Wert. 2012. Use of UV and Fluorescence Spectra
as Surrogate Measures for contaminant Oxidation and Disinfection in the
Ozone/H2O2 Advanced Oxidation Process. WateReuse Research Foundation
Project 09-10 Final Report, Alexandria, VA.
Solomon, K., 1986. Irrigation Efficiency, Irrigation Notes, Center for Irrigation Technology,
California State University, Fresno, California, January 1988, as accessed at
http://cwi.csufresno.edu/wateright/880104.asp on March 25, 2015.
Steinle-Darling, E., E. Litwiller, and M. Reinhard. 2010. Effects of Sorption on the Rejection
of Trace Organic Contaminants during Nanofiltration. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44(7):
2,592-2,598.
Steinle-Darling et al, in prep. Guidelines for Engineered Storage Systems for Direct Potable
Reuse, Final Report to the WateReuse Research Foundation for Project No. 12-06,
in preparation.
Texas A&M University AgrilLife Extension (TAMUAE), 2013 "TexasET Network." TexasET
Network, as accessed on March 10, 2015 at http://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2010. Procedures to Implement the
Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, RG-194, June 2010.
TCEQ, 2014. "INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING DOMESTIC WASTEWATER PERMIT
APPLICATIONS Form TCEQ-10053-Instruction, July 2014.
Texas State Historical Association, 2013. "Onion Creek (Blanco County)" Handbook of
Texas Online. as accessed on March 25, 2015 at https://tshaonline.org/handbook
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2015. Precipitation & Lake Evaporation, as
accessed on March 10, 2015 at
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/conditions/evaporation/
Trussell, R.R., A. Salveson, S.A. Snyder, R.S. Trussell, D. Gerrity, and B. Pecson. 2013.
Potable Reuse: State of the Science Report and Equivalency Criteria for Treatment
Trains. WateReuse Research Foundation Project 11-02 Final Report, Alexandria,
VA.
United States (US) Census Bureau, 2014a. South, West Have Fastest Growing Cities,
Census Bureau Reports; Three of Top 10 are in Texas Capital Area, as accessed
on February 16, 2015 at http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2014/cb14-89.html
April 2015
9-3
US Census Bureau, 2014b. Resident Population Estimates for the 100 Fastest Growing
U.S. Counties with 10,000 or More Population in 2010: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013,
as accessed on February 16, 2015 at
http://factfinder.census.gov/rest/dnldController/deliver?_ts=442245578830
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds, Technical Release 55, June 1986, as accessed on March 25, 2015 at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044171.pdf
United States (US) National Drought Mitigation Center, 2015. United States Drought
Monitor Tabular Data Archive for Texas, as accessed on February 16, 2015 at
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/DataTables.aspx?TX.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1998. Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule; 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142; Federal Register, Cincinnati OH,
63 (241), 69.47769.521.
US EPA, 2005. Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual, Office of Water, EPA 815-R-06-009,
November 2005.
US EPA, 2006a. Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule 71 CFR page 388,
Federal Register, January 4.
US EPA, 2006b. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Office of Water, EPA 815-R-06-007,
November 2006.
US EPA, 2010. Comprehensive Surface Water Treatment Rules Quick Reference Guide:
Systems Using Conventional or Direct Filtration, Office of Water, EPA 816-F-10074, August 2010.
April 2015
9-4
APPENDIX A TCEQ EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION

RECOMMENDATIONS
April 2015
Background Related to Monitoring Wastewater Effluent

Intended for use as Drinking Water
As water resources are diminished by drought, Texas communities may seek approval to
reuse (reclaim) wastewater to produce drinking water. Wastewater is subject to
contamination from microbes and chemicals; many of these contaminants have been
identified, but some are not yet regulated.
Sampling Wastewater Effluent proposed as a Drinking

Water Source
The Texas rules require that any entity proposing to use a new source of water must
identify the quality of that source water. Wastewater effluent is by definition fecally
impacted, and is subject to the presence of chemicals of human origin. Therefore, it is
critical that the quality of wastewater effluent be characterized before use as a drinking
water source.
Texas adopts specific rules under 30 TAC 210 for reclaimed water quality. However, the
30 TAC 210 standards do not address all of the chemical and microbial constituents of
concern in drinking water. Drinking water rules are based on removal of constituents at
levels found in ambient water, which is of higher quality than wastewater effluent.
The list presented here is for planning purposes only and is subject to change. A public
water system (PWS) may wish to sample additional constituents that are not listed here.
Additionally, when a PWS requests that they be granted permission to use wastewater
effluent as a drinking water source, the TCEQ may require additional, site-specific
testing.
Locations
The wastewater effluent that is intended as a new source of drinking water should be
characterized. It is recommended that any water streams intended for blending with the
wastewater be characterized as well. Likewise, any raw water used for treatment as
surface water should be sampled. Treated water should be analyzed in accordance with
the site-specific requirements applied by the TCEQ.
Sampling at various stages in the process allows a PWS to demonstrate the source of any
pathogens or chemical contaminants. A map showing the sampling locations, and a list
describing the sample location(s) should be provided to the TCEQ when the sampling
regime is proposed.
Frequency
Although a single snapshot view of water quality may be considered sufficient by a
PWSs design engineer, that snapshot must be viewed as a non-statistically
representative sample.
Seasonal variation
The TCEQ requires that wastewater intended for use as a drinking water source be
characterized over a period of time that includes seasonal variation. Without seasonal
data, changes in quality cannot be scientifically factored into treatment plant design.
Indoor use of drinking water increases in the summer, suggesting that the contaminant
Page 1 of 7
levels in summer may be less than those in the winter. PWSs often use different initial
sources of raw water on a seasonal basis, so that the baseline water quality
characteristics can change seasonally. A system may use surface water as their initial
source, but also use well water during the high-demand summer periods.
Schedule
At a minimum, wastewater effluent should be sampled 24 times at approximately equal
intervals over a period of one year for microorganisms, nitrate, nitrite, pH, and
temperature. Wastewater effluent should be sampled for other chemicals and water
quality parameters a minimum of four times over the same one year period: two times
representative of the typical extreme temperatures in the wastewater effluent, one time
when effluent temperatures are generally falling approximately midway between the
extreme temperatures, and one time when effluent temperatures are generally rising
approximately midway between the extreme temperatures.
Samples should be collected from other locations, such as at proposed blending points or
surface water intakes, at least 6 times at approximately equal intervals over the same one
year period.
Lists of Analyses
The constituents of concern in wastewater effluent can be broadly grouped as microbes
or chemicals and other constituents such as hardness and pH. Although the lists of
recommended analytes are not exhaustive, they provide a starting place for planning.
The EPAs Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 3 (UCMR3) will apply to all
large water systems that serve more than 10,000 people and selected small water
systems. Constituents identified for monitoring under UCMR3 are included in the
monitoring for wastewater effluent.
List of Microorganisms Identified for Sampling in Wastewater Effluent
Proposed for use as a Drinking Water Source
Method1
Regulated?
Total Virus
1615
Yes
**Endovirus
**Norovirus
*Rotavirus
1615
UCMR32,3
No2
*Poliovirus
No2
*Echoviruses
No2
*Coxsackie viruses group A and B
No2
*Adenovirus
No2
*Hepatitis A
No2
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
*Naegleria fowleri
1623
Yes
No
*Cyclospora
No
*Microsporidia (fungus)
No
Total coliform (indicator)
16044
Yes3
Escherichia coli (E. coli) (indicator)
16044
Yes3
MICROBIALS
2
Viruses
Protozoans
Bacteria
Page 2 of 7
Method1
Regulated?
*Enterococci
1600,
1106
No
*Salmonella (and / or Shigella, Campylobacter,

Pseudomonas5)
*Aeromonas
1200
No
1605
No
*Heterotrophic plate count (indicator)
9215
No
MICROBIALS
*
**
1
2
3
4
5
Page 3 of 7
Required to be sampled.
Recommended for sampling.
Highly recommended for sampling.
Method listed is an EPA method unless otherwise noted. List of methods is not
exhaustive, but is included for reference only.
Viruses are regulated as a group through treatment technique requirements of the
EPAs Surface Water Treatment Rules and Ground Water Rule
Regulations cover distribution levels and removal requirements.
Several approved methods exist. A PWS should propose one of these approved
methods for analysis.
Methods are in development. A PWS should propose the method they plan to use.
List of Chemicals and Other Constituents Identified for Sampling in

Wastewater Effluent Proposed for use as a Drinking Water Source
Method1
Regulated
Trihalomethanes
524
Yes2
Haloacetic acids
(also report bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA))
552
Yes2
CHEMICALS
Disinfection byproducts
(BCAA is not
regulated)
**Nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA)
521
UCMR33
**Nitroso-pyrrolidine (NPYR)
*Any other DBPs expected to occur on a site-specific basis, for example chlorite, if chlorine
dioxide is used.
Organic chemicals
SOC (Regulated (and tentatively identified unregulated)
synthetic organic chemicals): Alachlor, atrazine,
benzo(a)pyrene, di(ethylhexyl)-adipate, di(ethylhexyl)phthalate, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,
hexachlorobenzere (HCB), Hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
lindane, methoxychlor, pentachlorophenol (PCP),
simazine.
SOC (Regulated (and tentatively identified unregulated)
synthetic organic chemicals): 2, 4, 5-TP (Silvex), 2,4-D,
Dalapon, Dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram
SOC Chlordane, toxaphene (and unregulated aroclor
species)
EDP/DBCP (ethylene dibromide & 1,2-dichloro-3propane)
carbofuran, oxamyl (Vydate)
525.2
Yes
515.4
Yes
531.1
Yes
504.1
Yes
531.1
Yes
Glyphosate
547
Yes
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
1613
Yes
*Diquat
549.2
Yes
*Endothall
548.1
Yes
VOC (Regulated (and tentatively identified unregulated)

volatile organic chemicals): 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane,
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 1,2dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,2,4trichlorobenzene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, cis-1,2dichloroethylene, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene,
monochlorobenzene, o-dichlorobenzene, paradichlorobenzene, styrene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene,
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, vinyl
chloride, xylenes
**Pharmaceutical indicators: 17--ethynylestradiol
(ethinyl estradiol), 16--hydroxyestradiol (estriol),
equilin, estrone, testosterone, 4-androstene-3,17-dione
**Chemicals of human origin: Perfluorooctanesulfonic
sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) perfluorohexanesulfonic
acid (PFHxS) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
**Sucralose
524.2
Yes
537
UCMR3
537
UCMR3
No
*1,4 dioxane
522
No
*Caffeine
1694
No
*N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET)
633
No
*Gemfibrozil
1694
No
Page 4 of 7
Method1
Regulated
1694
No
Nitrate/nitrite, as nitrogen
Other regulated minerals: fluoride, chloride, sulfate,
total dissolved solids (TDS)
Regulated primary metals: Antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, selenium,
thallium
Regulated secondary metals: Aluminum, copper, iron,
manganese, silver, zinc
Asbestos (if asbestos/cement pipe is used in drinking
water distribution, wastewater collection, or associated
piping)
*Cyanide
300.0
Yes
200.5
Yes
100.2
Yes
335.4
Yes
*Sodium
200.7
Yes2
*Perchlorate
314
UCMR2
CHEMICALS
*Iopromide
Inorganic chemicals
Other water quality parameters

pH
Temperature
*Bicarbonate and carbonate alkalinity
*Total hardness
*Total suspended solids
*Total chlorine, free chlorine, monochloramine
*Ammonia
Required to be sampled.
*
Recommended for sampling.
**
Highly recommended for sampling.
1
Method listed is an EPA method unless otherwise noted. List of methods is not
exhaustive, but is included for reference only.
2
Regulated in distribution systems.
3
Regulatory monitoring requirements, not health-based standards.
4
Acceptable methods exist but have not yet been approved by the EPA.
It is generally understood that the cost of analysis may be a concern to a PWS. A system
should consider this cost in planning. Based on industry experience, the cost of
sampling prior to design is offset by the ability to design treatment based on actual levels
of contaminants. If the raw wastewater is not fully characterized, regulators may require
additional safety factors which may result in additional treatment needs with their
associated additional costs.
It is recommended that the starred analytes in the list above be included in analyses.
The intent of the sampling is to establish what viral, bacterial, protozoan, and chemical
contaminants are present in order to protect public health; an acceptable sampling
regime will ensure that characterization is accomplished.
In general, analyses should be performed at NELAC-accredited laboratories using EPAapproved methods. Where those labs or methods are unavailable, a PWS should identify
a capable lab and request permission for its use. Methods listed in these tables are
recommendations; other approved EPA-methods exist, and may be proposed for use.
The analytes of greatest concern are those with documented, immediate negative health
effects (acute health effects), such as pathogens and nitrate/nitrite. It may be
acceptable for a system to perform sampling for constituents that have long-term health
effects, like regulated organics, less frequently than sampling for pathogens or
nitrate/nitrite.
Page 5 of 7
Depending on the treatment method selected by the PWS, it may be necessary for a PWS
to perform additional sampling to characterize the impact on treatment. For example,
selenium interferes with adsorption under some conditions; if adsorption is used for
treatment, additional selenium sampling may be required.
Results
Results should be tabulated in a clear, easy-to-read manner for submittal; analytical
detail such as the quality assurance documentation needs to be submitted. The summary
tables should be organized with sample sites in order of extent of treatment; for
sampling over a period of time, analyses should be presented in the order that the
samples were collected. The summary tables should contain the units of measurement.
Notes Related to Sampling for Chemicals of Emerging Concern

Simultaneously, the drinking water industry and EPA are becoming concerned about
contaminants of emerging concern (CEC). Many of the CEC are of human origin,
especially pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
Public concern regarding these CECs is very high, and the EPA is researching their
presence through the Contaminant Candidate List and Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) process. As of 2012, the EPA has not determined or set
health-based maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for these potentially harmful
microbes and chemicals. Additional research into ambient levels of CEC chemicals is
ongoing. Therefore, levels identified in wastewater intended for use as drinking water
will be compared to levels present in ambient water in order to determine the relative
risk of wastewater effluent as contrasted with ambient (river or lake) waters. If the EPA
sets MCLs, further characterization may be necessary (see References).
Analytical methods do not yet exist for some of these CEC chemicals. The best current
methods for CEC chemicals are captured in the EPAs Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulations (UCMRs), 1 through 3.
Although the UCMR contaminants are not required by EPA to be sampled in all direct
and indirect reuse sources, the list provides a well-researched source of information for
chemicals that EPA is most likely to regulate in the future, and that are most likely to
have negative health effects.
Additionally, as interest in chemicals of emerging concern grows, researchers have
identified chemicals that can indicate the presence of anthropogenic contamination, but
that are not harmful to human health.
Pharmaceutical indicators
The UCMR3 list includes estrogenic hormones used in pharmaceuticals. It is
recommended that reuse sources be evaluated for these chemicals using analytical
method 537.
Personal care product indicator

The UCMR3 list includes 1,4 dioxane, which is used in personal care products such as
soaps and makeup. It is recommended that reuse sources be evaluated for 1,4 dioxane
using method EPA 522.
Chemicals of human origin

New research has identified sucralose as an excellent, conservative, easy-t0-measure
indicator that water contains chemicals of human origin. Sucralose is not biologically
Page 6 of 7
degraded, so it passes through wastewater biological treatment plants unchanged.

Sucralose should be quantified in reuse sources.
Additionally, EPA identified six perfluorinated compounds that may indicate
contamination from human industrial activities. These compounds
(perfluorooctanesulfonic sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS),
perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)) should be
quantified using method EPA 537 (1.1).
Disinfection byproducts of emerging concern

Wastewater sources are frequently chlorinated during the wastewater treatment process.
Regulated disinfection byproducts (trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids) are known to
frequently occur at levels of concern in wastewater. Additionally, the EPA has identified
the presence of other potentially carcinogenic disinfection byproducts called
nitrosamines. It is recommended that the two most-frequently occurring nitrosamines
(nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA) and Nitroso-pyrrolidine (NPYR)) be quantified using
method EPA 521.
References
1.
Guidelines for Water Reuse, (EPA/625/R-04/108); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Municipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater
Management, Office of Water; September 2004; available at:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/smallsystems/pubs/625r04108.pdf
2. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for

Public Water Systems, (77 FR 26072); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
May 5, 2012
Page 7 of 7
APPENDIX B WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODEL

OUTPUTS
April 2015
BioWin user and configuration data

Project details
Project name: Dripping Springs
Project ref.: 9756A.00
Plant name: Dripping Springs WWTP
User name: tshimada
Created: 3/10/2015Saved: 3/11/2015
Scenario: Annual Average Conditions
Steady state solution
Target SRT: 4.00 daysSRT #0: 3.98 days
Temperature: 18.0C
Flowsheet
Methanol
Influent
Anox 1
Oxic 1
Anox 2
Alum
Oxic 2
Effluent
WAS
Configuration information for all Bioreactor units

Physical data
Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
Volume [Mil. Gal]

0.0346
0.0692
0.0985
0.0346
Area [ft2]
289.0842
578.1684
822.9710
289.0842
Depth [ft]
16.000
16.000
16.000
16.000
# of diffusers
Un-aerated
Un-aerated
186
66
Operating data Average (flow/time weighted as required)

Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
Average DO Setpoint [mg/L]

0
0
2.0
2.0
Aeration equipment parameters

Element name
k1 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
k2 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
Y in Kla = C Usg ^
Y - Usg in [m3/(m2
d)]
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
Area of one diffuser
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
File C:\Users\tshimada\Desktop\Dripping Springs AA 18 deg.bwc
% of tank area
covered by
diffusers [%]
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
Configuration information for all Model clarifier units

Physical data
Element name
Model clarifier5
Volume[Mil. Gal]
0.3388
Area[ft2]
3019.0000
Depth[ft]
15.000
Number of layers
10
Top feed layer

6
Feed Layers
1

Element name
Model clarifier5
Split method
Flow paced
Average Split specification

75.00 %
Element name
Model clarifier5
Average Temperature
Uses global setting
Reactive
No
Configuration information for all COD Influent units

Element name
Time
Flow
Total COD mgCOD/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mgN/L
Total P mgP/L
Nitrate N mgN/L
pH
Alkalinity mmol/L
ISS Influent mgISS/L
Calcium mg/L
Magnesium mg/L
Dissolved oxygen mg/L
Influent
0
0.35
593.60
59.80
7.69
0
7.30
6.98
50.80
80.00
15.00
0
Element name
Fbs - Readily biodegradable (including Acetate) [gCOD/g of total COD]
Fac - Acetate [gCOD/g of readily biodegradable COD]
Fxsp - Non-colloidal slowly biodegradable [gCOD/g of slowly degradable COD]
Fus - Unbiodegradable soluble [gCOD/g of total COD]
Fup - Unbiodegradable particulate [gCOD/g of total COD]
Fna - Ammonia [gNH3-N/gTKN]
Fnox - Particulate organic nitrogen [gN/g Organic N]
Fnus - Soluble unbiodegradable TKN [gN/gTKN]
FupN - N:COD ratio for unbiodegradable part. COD [gN/gCOD]
Fpo4 - Phosphate [gPO4-P/gTP]
FupP - P:COD ratio for unbiodegradable part. COD [gP/gCOD]
FZbh - OHO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZbm - Methylotroph COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZaob - AOB COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZnob - NOB COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZaao - AAO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZbp - PAO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZbpa - Propionic acetogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZbam - Acetoclastic methanogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZbhm - H2-utilizing methanogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
FZe - Endogenous products COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD]
Influent
0.1379
0.1500
0.7791
0.0500
0.1874
0.7500
0.5923
0.0200
0.0188
0.4038
0.0110
0.0200
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
0
Configuration information for all Metal addition units

Element name
Metal mg/L
Other Cations (strong bases) meq/L
Other Anions (strong acids) meq/L
Total CO2 mmol/L
Flow
Alum
150000.00
5.00
16697.46
7.00
2.64172037284185E-5
Configuration information for all Dewatering unit units

Element name
Dewatering unit6
Split method
Flow paced
Element name
Dewatering unit6
Percent removal
60.00

5.00 %
Configuration information for all Splitter units

Element name
Splitter9
Splitter11
Split method
Flowrate [Side]
Flow paced

0.0142693612270991
200.00 %
Configuration information for all Stream (SV) Influent units

Element name
Methanol mgCOD/L
Flow
Methanol
1188000.00
5E-6
BioWin Album
Album page - Anoxic 1
Anox 1
Parameters
Volatile suspended solids
Total suspended solids
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Filtered Carbonaceous BOD
Total Carbonaceous BOD
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
Volatile fatty acids
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2073.13
2809.57
3097.08
38.91
3135.99
1.43
76.78
16.23
150.13
166.36
5.36
897.76
0.23
166.59
14.23
-999.00
7.04
1.28
99.98
106.47
736.44
14.00
0.10
Mass rate (lb/d)

22763.61
30849.89
34006.89
427.27
34434.16
15.73
843.08
178.18
1648.48
1826.66
58.81
9857.72
2.54
1829.20
156.23
-4975.60
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
Total readily biodegradable COD
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Nit - Ammonia removal rate
Nit - Nitrous oxide production rate
Nit - Nitrite production rate
Nit - Nitrate production rate
Denit - Nitrate removal rate
Denit - Nitrite removal rate
Denit - N2 production rate
Deamm - Ammonia removal rate
Deamm - Nitrite removal rate
Deamm - Nitrate production rate
Deamm - N2 production rate
Off gas flow rate (dry)
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Carbon dioxide
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
Off gas Nitrous oxide
Actual DO sat. conc.
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
Air flow rate / diffuser
# of diffusers
Value
0.6
70.76
0
811.27
3.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0
4.94
5.15
8.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0
62.56
0
11.73
0.01
0.04
9.43
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
ft3/min (20C, 1 atm)
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
14.02
1097.83
1169.08
8086.29
153.69
1.11

Anox 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2045.72
2783.78
3049.86
32.73
3082.59
1.44
76.78
5.62
150.91
156.53
1.07
864.82
0.29
156.81
4.27
-999.00
6.98
0.19
99.98
108.10
738.06
3.99
0.11
Mass rate (lb/d)

10512.04
14304.61
15671.89
168.18
15840.07
7.38
394.54
28.85
775.46
804.32
5.51
4443.91
1.47
805.79
21.96
-2328.48
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
2.7
70.54
0.41
1607.64
1.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0
1.78
2.11
3.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0
58.60
0
10.70
0.03
0.07
9.43
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
131.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.99
513.76
555.49
3792.57
20.48
0.58
Album page - Oxic 1

Oxic 1
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2054.25
2792.51
3063.11
32.05
3095.15
1.36
76.78
5.53
150.99
156.52
1.59
874.34
9.69
166.21
12.76
-999.00
6.81
0.02
99.98
108.30
738.27
3.08
4.92
Mass rate (lb/d)

22556.25
30662.66
33633.84
351.87
33985.71
14.94
843.08
60.76
1657.89
1718.65
17.49
9600.52
106.36
1825.01
140.16
-4975.60
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.8
164.15
0.91
2295.51
1.90
43.33
22.47
20.86
5.54
0.05
5.44
2.81
0.13
0.09
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
305.27
18.51
2.40
0
0.09
0.00
0.00
9.43
36.54
109.88
11.42
35.12
306.61
1.65
186.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.20
1097.81
1189.22
8106.40
33.80
53.99
Album page - Oxic 2

Oxic 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2030.82
2769.57
3024.63
31.37
3056.00
1.62
76.78
2.72
150.58
153.30
1.06
849.85
3.33
156.63
3.72
-999.00
6.86
0.00
99.98
108.79
738.74
0.38
2.97
Mass rate (lb/d)

10435.50
14231.58
15542.24
161.20
15703.44
8.32
394.54
13.96
773.77
787.72
5.43
4366.99
17.12
804.84
19.10
-2328.48
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.3
137.29
0.73
799.71
1.49
29.04
18.71
10.33
2.46
0.00
2.43
2.25
0.13
0.07
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.80
18.31
2.24
0
0.18
0.00
0.00
9.43
8.81
26.51
12.40
38.14
68.11
1.03
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.02
513.75
559.01
3796.09
1.97
15.28
Album page - Clarifier

Model clarifier5
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
1.29
1.76
1.92
31.37
33.29
0.37
0.41
2.72
0.10
2.81
1.06
1.60
3.33
6.14
3.72
3.53
6.84
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.47
0.38
2.97
Mass rate (lb/d)

3.80
5.19
5.66
92.48
98.13
1.08
1.22
8.01
0.28
8.29
3.12
4.70
9.82
18.11
10.95
4.73
Parameters
Element HRT
Percent TSS removal
Percent COD removal
Percent BOD removal
Percent TKN removal
Percent Tot. P removal
Height of specified concentration
Total solids mass
Surface overflow rate
Solids loading rate
Value
13.20
99.96
99.38
99.89
98.95
99.69
1.64
2089.51
117.01
4.72
Units
hours
%
%
%
%
%
ft
lb
gal/(ft2 d)
lb/(ft2 d)
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.01
0.20
0.20
1.39
1.13
8.76
Album page - Effluent

Effluent
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
0.54
0.74
0.81
31.37
32.18
0.37
0.39
2.72
0.04
2.76
1.06
1.28
3.33
6.09
3.72
3.53
6.84
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.38
2.97
Mass rate (lb/d)

1.52
2.08
2.26
87.89
90.16
1.02
1.08
7.61
0.11
7.72
2.96
3.60
9.34
17.06
10.41
4.49
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.01
0.08
0.08
0.56
1.08
8.33
Album page - Waste

WAS
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
4761.88
6507.61
7092.17
31.37
7123.54
0.37
179.54
2.72
353.08
355.80
1.06
1991.30
3.33
359.13
3.72
-999.00
6.84
0.00
247.95
255.08
1745.73
0.38
2.97
Mass rate (lb/d)

567.06
774.95
844.56
3.74
848.30
0.04
21.38
0.32
42.05
42.37
0.13
237.13
0.40
42.77
0.44
-53.96
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.00
29.53
30.38
207.89
0.05
0.35

Project details
User name: tshimada
Created: 3/10/2015Saved: 3/30/2015
Scenario: Annual Average
Temperature: 22.0C
Flowsheet
Methanol
Influent
Anox 1
Oxic 1
Anox 2
Alum
Oxic 2
Effluent
WAS

Physical data
Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
Volume [Mil. Gal]

0.0346
0.0692
0.0985
0.0346
Area [ft2]
289.0842
578.1684
822.9710
289.0842
Depth [ft]
16.000
16.000
16.000
16.000
# of diffusers
Un-aerated
Un-aerated
186
66

Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2

0
0
2.0
2.0

Element name
k1 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
k2 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
Y in Kla = C Usg ^
Y - Usg in [m3/(m2
d)]
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
File C:\Users\tshimada\Documents\Projects\Texas\Dripping Springs\Models\Dripping Springs AA 22deg.bwc
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
% of tank area
covered by
diffusers [%]
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000

Physical data
Element name
Model clarifier5
Volume[Mil. Gal]
0.3388
Area[ft2]
3019.0000
Depth[ft]
15.000
Number of layers
10
Top feed layer

6
Feed Layers
1

Element name
Model clarifier5
Split method
Flow paced

75.00 %
Element name
Model clarifier5
Average Temperature
Uses global setting
Reactive
No

Element name
Time
Flow
Total COD mgCOD/L
Total P mgP/L
Nitrate N mgN/L
pH
Alkalinity mmol/L
Calcium mg/L
Magnesium mg/L
Influent
0
0.35
593.60
59.80
7.69
0
7.30
6.98
50.80
80.00
15.00
0
Element name
Influent
0.1379
0.1500
0.7791
0.0500
0.1874
0.7500
0.5923
0.0200
0.0188
0.4038
0.0110
0.0200
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
0

Element name
Metal mg/L
Total CO2 mmol/L
Flow
Alum
150000.00
5.00
16697.46
7.00
2.64172037284185E-5

Element name
Dewatering unit6
Split method
Flow paced
Element name
Dewatering unit6
Percent removal
60.00

5.00 %

Element name
Splitter9
Splitter11
Split method
Flowrate [Side]
Flow paced

0.014263272769326
200.00 %

Element name
Methanol mgCOD/L
Flow
Methanol
1188000.00
1E-5
BioWin Album
Anox 1
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2067.47
2814.25
3087.73
37.66
3125.39
1.35
78.76
15.27
149.92
165.19
4.81
880.91
0.60
165.79
13.63
-999.00
7.02
0.58
110.02
106.54
746.77
13.04
0.46
Mass rate (lb/d)

22701.59
30901.42
33904.38
413.47
34317.85
14.77
864.85
167.71
1646.19
1813.90
52.83
9672.74
6.56
1820.46
149.71
-4975.62
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
0.6
75.35
0
812.62
2.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
7.33
4.46
8.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.24
0
63.61
0
8.77
0.00
0.03
8.76
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
6.39
1208.08
1169.90
8199.83
143.15
5.04

Anox 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2041.87
2790.37
3043.19
32.13
3075.32
1.30
78.76
3.80
150.85
154.65
0.69
849.34
0.28
154.92
2.45
-999.00
6.94
0.15
110.02
108.27
748.49
2.18
0.24
Mass rate (lb/d)

10492.49
14338.72
15637.92
165.09
15803.01
6.68
404.73
19.51
775.17
794.67
3.56
4364.44
1.42
796.09
12.61
-2328.52
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
2.7
75.11
0.29
1611.44
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
3.18
2.08
3.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
0
58.17
0
9.91
0.02
0.03
8.76
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
131.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.76
565.35
556.38
3846.24
11.19
1.25
Album page - Oxic 1

Oxic 1
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2047.81
2796.34
3052.65
31.89
3084.54
1.30
78.76
3.94
150.70
154.63
1.51
857.18
10.80
165.43
12.28
-999.00
6.79
0.01
110.02
108.30
748.53
1.49
8.82
Mass rate (lb/d)

22485.73
30704.85
33519.19
350.18
33869.37
14.29
864.85
43.24
1654.69
1697.93
16.59
9412.11
118.55
1816.48
134.89
-4975.62
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.8
182.34
0.95
2298.66
1.82
47.24
22.92
24.32
5.95
0.04
5.86
4.81
0.15
0.09
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
342.97
18.57
2.32
0
0.06
0.00
0.00
8.76
39.75
119.62
11.20
34.47
340.08
1.83
186.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.09
1208.06
1189.21
8219.12
16.34
96.90
Album page - Oxic 2

Oxic 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2026.12
2775.12
3016.95
31.33
3048.28
1.54
78.76
2.47
150.33
152.80
1.02
833.97
1.96
154.76
2.10
-999.00
6.88
0.00
110.02
108.78
749.00
0.14
1.92
Mass rate (lb/d)

10411.53
14260.38
15503.05
161.00
15664.04
7.90
404.73
12.68
772.50
785.18
5.25
4285.50
10.06
795.24
10.79
-2328.52
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.3
137.29
0.77
801.32
1.44
24.96
18.69
6.28
1.48
0.00
1.47
1.39
0.13
0.06
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57.89
18.18
2.43
0
0.20
0.00
0.00
8.76
7.64
22.98
12.78
39.35
57.22
0.87
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.02
565.35
558.99
3848.85
0.73
9.85

Model clarifier5
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
1.28
1.76
1.91
31.33
33.24
0.16
0.21
2.47
0.10
2.56
1.02
1.55
1.96
4.52
2.10
3.60
6.85
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.48
0.14
1.92
Mass rate (lb/d)

3.78
5.19
5.63
92.36
97.99
0.47
0.61
7.27
0.28
7.55
3.01
4.57
5.77
13.32
6.19
4.82
Parameters
Element HRT
Percent TSS removal
Percent COD removal
Percent BOD removal
Percent TKN removal
Total solids mass
Solids loading rate
Value
13.20
99.96
99.37
99.89
99.04
99.85
1.64
2094.04
117.01
4.73
Units
hours
%
%
%
%
%
ft
lb
gal/(ft2 d)
lb/(ft2 d)
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.01
0.22
0.20
1.41
0.42
5.65

Effluent
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
0.54
0.74
0.80
31.33
32.13
0.16
0.18
2.47
0.04
2.51
1.02
1.24
1.96
4.46
2.10
3.60
6.85
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.14
1.92
Mass rate (lb/d)

1.51
2.08
2.25
87.79
90.04
0.44
0.50
6.91
0.11
7.02
2.86
3.49
5.48
12.51
5.88
4.58
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.01
0.09
0.08
0.56
0.40
5.37
Album page - Waste

WAS
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
4750.95
6522.10
7074.29
31.33
7105.62
0.16
184.47
2.47
352.51
354.97
1.02
1954.17
1.96
356.93
2.10
-999.00
6.85
0.00
272.84
255.08
1771.15
0.14
1.92
Mass rate (lb/d)

565.52
776.34
842.07
3.73
845.80
0.02
21.96
0.29
41.96
42.25
0.12
232.61
0.23
42.49
0.25
-53.94
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.00
32.48
30.36
210.83
0.02
0.23

Project details
User name: tshimada
Created: 3/10/2015Saved: 3/30/2015
Scenario: Maximum Month Conditions
Temperature: 18.0C
Flowsheet
Methanol
Influent
Anox 1
Oxic 1
Anox 2
Alum
Oxic 2
Effluent
WAS

Physical data
Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
Volume [Mil. Gal]

0.0346
0.0692
0.0985
0.0346
Area [ft2]
289.0842
578.1684
822.9710
289.0842
Depth [ft]
16.000
16.000
16.000
16.000
# of diffusers
Un-aerated
Un-aerated
186
66

Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2

0
0
2.0
2.0

Element name
k1 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
k2 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
Y in Kla = C Usg ^
Y - Usg in [m3/(m2
d)]
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
File C:\Users\tshimada\Documents\Projects\Texas\Dripping Springs\Models\Dripping Springs MM 18 deg.bwc
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
% of tank area
covered by
diffusers [%]
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000

Physical data
Element name
Model clarifier5
Volume[Mil. Gal]
0.3388
Area[ft2]
3019.0000
Depth[ft]
15.000
Number of layers
10
Top feed layer

6
Feed Layers
1

Element name
Model clarifier5
Split method
Flow paced

75.00 %
Element name
Model clarifier5
Average Temperature
Uses global setting
Reactive
No

Element name
Time
Flow
Total COD mgCOD/L
Total P mgP/L
Nitrate N mgN/L
pH
Alkalinity mmol/L
Calcium mg/L
Magnesium mg/L
Influent
0
0.5
554.60
55.90
7.18
0
7.30
6.99
47.50
80.00
15.00
0
Element name
Influent
0.1379
0.1500
0.7791
0.0500
0.1874
0.7500
0.5923
0.0200
0.0188
0.4038
0.0110
0.0200
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
0

Element name
Metal mg/L
Total CO2 mmol/L
Flow
Alum
150000.00
5.00
16697.46
7.00
2.64172037284185E-5

Element name
Dewatering unit6
Split method
Flow paced
Element name
Dewatering unit6
Percent removal
60.00

5.00 %

Element name
Splitter9
Splitter11
Split method
Flowrate [Side]
Flow paced

0.0141102229035652
200.00 %

Element name
Methanol mgCOD/L
Flow
Methanol
1188000.00
9.99891161120639E-6
BioWin Album
Anox 1
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2803.13
3795.26
4182.73
36.73
4219.45
1.32
103.86
15.31
205.02
220.33
5.19
1216.41
0.20
220.53
13.37
-999.00
7.04
1.33
136.04
146.38
992.13
13.17
0.09
Mass rate (lb/d)

44117.14
59731.73
65829.88
578.04
66407.92
20.74
1634.53
240.89
3226.74
3467.63
81.67
19144.51
3.22
3470.84
210.42
-7131.73
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
0.4
70.94
0
1095.88
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0
6.23
6.92
11.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0
63.56
0
11.70
0.01
0.03
9.43
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
21.00
2141.04
2303.83
15614.59
207.20
1.36

Anox 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2780.28
3773.93
4143.02
31.06
4174.07
1.27
103.85
5.33
205.87
211.20
1.21
1187.97
0.15
211.35
3.97
-999.00
6.98
0.23
136.04
147.91
993.64
3.82
0.08
Mass rate (lb/d)

20555.16
27901.37
30630.11
229.61
30859.72
9.41
767.81
39.42
1522.04
1561.45
8.92
8782.86
1.12
1562.58
29.36
-3350.14
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.9
70.62
0.19
2179.45
1.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0
2.29
3.01
4.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.49
0
59.09
0
10.76
0.04
0.04
9.43
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
131.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
1.68
1005.74
1093.53
7346.20
28.23
0.55
Album page - Oxic 1

Oxic 1
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2785.53
3779.35
4151.09
30.10
4181.19
1.27
103.86
5.44
205.76
211.20
1.59
1194.47
8.98
220.18
12.04
-999.00
6.84
0.02
136.04
148.07
993.82
3.06
4.36
Mass rate (lb/d)

43840.08
59481.28
65332.01
473.65
65805.66
19.91
1634.53
85.58
3238.34
3323.92
24.98
18799.23
141.39
3465.31
189.52
-7131.73
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.3
190.25
0.63
3106.71
1.89
57.68
30.08
27.59
7.37
0.07
7.24
3.57
0.16
0.11
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
433.60
18.66
2.25
0
0.10
0.00
0.00
9.43
48.72
146.52
10.72
32.97
435.53
2.34
186.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.32
2141.01
2330.48
15641.21
48.14
68.63
Album page - Oxic 2

Oxic 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2765.61
3760.07
4117.89
29.56
4147.45
1.41
103.85
2.60
205.72
208.32
1.14
1173.18
2.85
211.17
3.21
-999.00
6.88
0.01
136.04
148.72
994.45
0.36
2.52
Mass rate (lb/d)

20446.70
27798.88
30444.38
218.55
30662.93
10.41
767.81
19.26
1520.92
1540.18
8.42
8673.58
21.06
1561.24
23.75
-3350.14
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
0.9
159.69
0.53
1085.72
1.61
39.93
26.76
13.18
3.16
0.00
3.12
2.79
0.18
0.10
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.38
18.46
2.17
0
0.18
0.00
0.00
9.43
12.15
36.53
11.55
35.55
100.71
1.53
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.04
1005.74
1099.51
7352.18
2.69
18.65

Model clarifier5
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
1.96
2.66
2.91
29.56
32.47
0.25
0.32
2.60
0.15
2.75
1.14
1.97
2.85
5.60
3.21
3.79
6.86
0.01
0.10
0.11
0.71
0.36
2.52
Mass rate (lb/d)

8.34
11.36
12.42
126.04
138.46
1.05
1.36
11.11
0.62
11.73
4.86
8.39
12.14
23.87
13.70
7.33
Parameters
Element HRT
Percent TSS removal
Percent COD removal
Percent BOD removal
Percent TKN removal
Total solids mass
Solids loading rate
Value
9.18
99.96
99.55
99.90
99.24
99.82
1.76
2953.14
169.23
9.22
Units
hours
%
%
%
%
%
ft
lb
gal/(ft2 d)
lb/(ft2 d)
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.02
0.43
0.45
3.02
1.55
10.76

Effluent
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
0.82
1.12
1.23
29.56
30.79
0.25
0.28
2.60
0.06
2.67
1.14
1.49
2.85
5.51
3.21
3.79
6.86
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.30
0.36
2.52
Mass rate (lb/d)

3.34
4.54
4.97
119.87
124.84
1.00
1.12
10.56
0.25
10.81
4.62
6.03
11.55
22.36
13.03
6.97
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.02
0.17
0.18
1.21
1.48
10.23
Album page - Waste

WAS
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
6530.82
8891.77
9724.14
29.56
9753.70
0.25
244.91
2.60
485.79
488.40
1.14
2768.85
2.85
491.25
3.21
-999.00
6.86
0.01
333.86
351.19
2360.95
0.36
2.52
Mass rate (lb/d)

769.04
1047.05
1145.07
3.48
1148.55
0.03
28.84
0.31
57.20
57.51
0.13
326.05
0.34
57.85
0.38
-53.36
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.00
39.31
41.35
278.02
0.04
0.30

Project details
User name: tshimada
Created: 3/10/2015Saved: 3/11/2015
Scenario: Maximum Month Conditions
Temperature: 28.0C
Flowsheet
Methanol
Influent
Anox 1
Oxic 1
Anox 2
Alum
Oxic 2
Effluent
WAS

Physical data
Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
Volume [Mil. Gal]

0.0346
0.0692
0.0985
0.0346
Area [ft2]
289.0842
578.1684
822.9710
289.0842
Depth [ft]
16.000
16.000
16.000
16.000
# of diffusers
Un-aerated
Un-aerated
186
66

Element name
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2

0
0
2.0
2.0

Element name
k1 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
k2 in C =
k1(PC)^0.25 + k2
Anox 1
Anox 2
Oxic 1
Oxic 2
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
2.5656
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
0.0432
Y in Kla = C Usg ^
Y - Usg in [m3/(m2
d)]
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
0.8200
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
0.4413
File C:\Users\tshimada\Desktop\Dripping Springs MM 28 deg.bwc
% of tank area
covered by
diffusers [%]
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000

Physical data
Element name
Model clarifier5
Volume[Mil. Gal]
0.3388
Area[ft2]
3019.0000
Depth[ft]
15.000
Number of layers
10
Top feed layer

6
Feed Layers
1

Element name
Model clarifier5
Split method
Flow paced

75.00 %
Element name
Model clarifier5
Average Temperature
Uses global setting
Reactive
No

Element name
Time
Flow
Total COD mgCOD/L
Total P mgP/L
Nitrate N mgN/L
pH
Alkalinity mmol/L
Calcium mg/L
Magnesium mg/L
Influent
0
0.5
554.60
55.90
7.18
0
7.30
6.99
47.50
80.00
15.00
0
Element name
Influent
0.1379
0.1500
0.7791
0.0500
0.1874
0.7500
0.5923
0.0200
0.0188
0.4038
0.0110
0.0200
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
1.000E-4
0

Element name
Metal mg/L
Total CO2 mmol/L
Flow
Alum
150000.00
5.00
16697.46
7.00
2.64172037284185E-5

Element name
Dewatering unit6
Split method
Flow paced
Element name
Dewatering unit6
Percent removal
60.00

5.00 %

Element name
Splitter9
Splitter11
Split method
Flowrate [Side]
Flow paced

0.0141271301226752
200.00 %

Element name
Methanol mgCOD/L
Flow
Methanol
1188000.00
1E-5
BioWin Album
Anox 1
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2603.57
3614.16
3892.83
34.64
3927.46
1.27
105.21
13.88
186.61
200.49
4.39
1028.10
1.54
202.03
13.28
-999.00
7.03
0.32
169.83
132.01
1010.58
11.74
1.44
Mass rate (lb/d)

40976.01
56880.96
61266.77
545.10
61811.88
20.06
1655.78
218.40
2936.97
3155.37
69.11
16180.55
24.19
3179.56
208.94
-7131.67
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
0.4
82.75
0
1043.59
2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
11.47
5.62
11.61
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.26
0
64.33
0
5.69
0.00
0.02
7.84
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
5.06
2672.90
2077.58
15904.95
184.75
22.72

Anox 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2575.55
3587.55
3845.03
29.35
3874.38
1.34
105.21
3.12
187.14
190.25
0.58
995.01
1.50
191.76
3.02
-999.00
6.94
0.04
169.83
133.43
1012.00
1.51
1.46
Mass rate (lb/d)

19041.15
26522.92
28426.51
216.96
28643.47
9.94
777.79
23.04
1383.51
1406.55
4.28
7356.18
11.12
1417.67
22.30
-3350.08
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.9
82.38
0.36
2071.82
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.19
2.64
5.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.58
0
59.83
0
5.83
0.00
0.02
7.84
0
0
100.00
100.00
0
0
131.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.33
1255.57
986.49
7481.77
11.18
10.79
Album page - Oxic 1

Oxic 1
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2584.86
3596.94
3859.78
29.78
3889.56
1.26
105.21
3.02
187.22
190.24
1.41
1005.66
11.50
201.74
12.17
-999.00
6.83
0.00
169.83
133.51
1012.08
0.67
11.20
Mass rate (lb/d)

40681.45
56610.00
60746.64
468.62
61215.26
19.90
1655.78
47.49
2946.52
2994.01
22.25
15827.49
181.01
3175.02
191.58
-7131.67
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
1.3
238.66
0.72
2956.77
1.71
66.23
30.93
35.30
8.29
0.00
8.20
8.01
0.23
0.11
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
530.72
18.76
2.13
0
0.03
0.00
0.00
7.84
55.75
168.37
10.35
31.98
515.98
2.77
186.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.07
2672.87
2101.21
15928.55
10.57
176.19
Album page - Oxic 2

Oxic 2
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
2560.33
3572.66
3820.01
29.26
3849.27
1.59
105.21
2.31
186.56
188.87
1.00
980.33
2.74
191.61
2.82
-999.00
6.91
0.00
169.83
133.76
1012.33
0.08
2.72
Mass rate (lb/d)

18928.67
26412.87
28241.55
216.31
28457.86
11.76
777.79
17.04
1379.28
1396.33
7.36
7247.65
20.28
1416.61
20.86
-3350.08
Parameters
Element HRT
Velocity gradient
VSS destruction
Total solids mass
OUR - Total
OUR - Carbonaceous
OUR - Nitrification
Off gas Oxygen
Off gas Ammonia
Off gas Hydrogen
Off gas Methane
OTR
SOTR
OTE
SOTE
Air flow rate
# of diffusers
Value
0.9
169.55
0.59
1031.61
1.41
32.35
25.15
7.20
1.70
0.00
1.68
1.60
0.18
0.06
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
82.04
18.34
2.38
0
0.11
0.00
0.00
7.84
9.96
30.07
12.01
37.10
79.43
1.20
66.00
Units
hours
1/s
%
lb
mg/L
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgO/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
mgN/L/hr
ft3/min
%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/L
lb/hr
lb/hr
%
%
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.01
1255.57
988.91
7484.20
0.58
20.14

Model clarifier5
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
1.90
2.65
2.83
29.26
32.09
0.14
0.22
2.31
0.14
2.44
1.00
1.72
2.74
5.19
2.82
3.74
6.88
0.00
0.13
0.10
0.75
0.08
2.72
Mass rate (lb/d)

8.08
11.30
12.06
124.75
136.81
0.59
0.92
9.83
0.59
10.42
4.24
7.33
11.70
22.11
12.03
7.23
Parameters
Element HRT
Percent TSS removal
Percent COD removal
Percent BOD removal
Percent TKN removal
Total solids mass
Solids loading rate
Value
9.18
99.96
99.52
99.90
99.25
99.88
1.74
2809.19
169.22
8.77
Units
hours
%
%
%
%
%
ft
lb
gal/(ft2 d)
lb/(ft2 d)
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.01
0.56
0.42
3.22
0.33
11.61

Effluent
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
0.80
1.11
1.19
29.26
30.45
0.14
0.17
2.31
0.06
2.36
1.00
1.30
2.74
5.11
2.82
3.74
6.88
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.32
0.08
2.72
Mass rate (lb/d)

3.23
4.52
4.82
118.64
123.47
0.56
0.69
9.35
0.24
9.58
4.03
5.27
11.12
20.71
11.44
6.88
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.01
0.22
0.17
1.29
0.32
11.05
Album page - Waste

WAS
Parameters
Particulate COD
Filtered COD
Total COD
Soluble PO4-P
Total P
Filtered TKN
Particulate TKN
Nitrite + Nitrate
Total N
Total inorganic N
Alkalinity
pH
ISS precipitate
ISS cellular
ISS Total
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Conc. (mg/L)
6045.83
8452.06
9020.37
29.26
9049.63
0.14
248.24
2.31
440.54
442.85
1.00
2313.55
2.74
445.59
2.82
-999.00
6.88
0.00
416.80
315.86
2406.23
0.08
2.72
Mass rate (lb/d)

712.78
996.47
1063.47
3.45
1066.92
0.02
29.27
0.27
51.94
52.21
0.12
272.76
0.32
52.53
0.33
-53.42
Notes
mmol/L and kmol/d
0.00
49.14
37.24
283.69
0.01
0.32
APPENDIX C EFFLUENT LAND APPLICATION

CALCULATIONS
April 2015
TABLE C-1: FIRST LOOK (CHAPTER 285 METHOD)

CHAPTER 285 METHOD
Total Usable Irrigation Area
ATotal
Maximum Surface Application Rate

(per TAC Chapter 285 - Figure 1)
Estimated Daily Disposal Volume
159.37
acres
---
0.0545
gpd/sf
378,336
gpd
TABLE C-2: MONTHLY WATER BALANCE CALCULATIONS

Crop Data
Curve Number
Effluent Water Conductivity
Assumed Allowable Conductivity
Pond Surface Area
CROP
CN
Ce
Ashe Juniper
73
1.00
CL
7.00
APond
11.65
ac
Storage Required
Storage Days
Required Pond Volume
Maximum Application Rate
AEasement
6.6
ac
Easement Canopy Density
DCanopy
0%
percent
Tract Canopy Density
Powerline Easement
DCanopy
95%
percent
Total Tract Acreage
ATract
186
ac
Pond Depth
Total Usable Irrigation Area

Irrigation Efficiency
Design Flow
Effluent Available Application
ATotal
K
Q
AR
159
75%
0.500
3.51
ac
Pond Volume Provided

Pond Volume Provided
Actual Storage Days
Low Net Evaporation

Maximum Annual Precipitation
1
-----
MGD
in/ac/mo
3.59 feet
47.12 Inches
3
134 Ac-Ft
87 Days
43,655,944 Gallons
Pond Surface Area
11.6 ac
15.0 Feet
135.1 ac-ft
44,012,160 Gallons
88 Days
Cedar / Grassland ET
correction Factor
Average
Precipitation
Average
Runoff
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
in
PRECIP
1.72
2.04
2.12
2.69
3.90
3.33
1.97
2.12
3.32
3.26
2.15
1.80
in
RUN
0.20
0.34
0.37
0.68
1.46
1.07
0.31
0.37
1.06
1.02
0.39
0.24
in
Ri (1)
1.51
1.70
1.74
2.02
2.44
2.26
1.66
1.74
2.26
2.24
1.76
1.56
in
ET
2.41
2.88
4.60
5.59
6.77
7.58
7.65
7.69
5.90
4.64
2.90
2.34
in
Leach
0.15
0.20
0.48
0.59
0.72
0.89
1.00
0.99
0.61
0.40
0.19
0.13
in
TWN
2.55
3.08
5.08
6.18
7.49
8.46
8.65
8.68
6.51
5.04
3.09
2.47
in
ERRZ
1.04
1.38
3.33
4.16
5.05
6.20
6.99
6.93
4.25
2.81
1.33
0.91
9A
Evaporation
From
Reservoir
Surface
ft
EFRS
0.18
0.21
0.32
0.38
0.41
0.54
0.62
0.60
0.45
0.37
0.26
0.19
Total
30.43
7.51
22.92
60.96
6.34
67.30
44.38
4.54
14B
15
16
Month
5.26 ac-in/ac/mo
0.11 gpd/sf
748,303 gpd
Average
Average
Infiltration of Evapotranspir Req. Leaching
ation
Rainfall
Total Water
Needs
Effluent
Required in
Root Zone
6.0 %
9B
10
11
Net
Evaporation
from Surface
Effluent
Applied to
Land
Consumption
from
Reservoir
in
EFRS
0.16
0.18
0.28
0.34
0.36
0.47
0.55
0.53
0.40
0.32
0.23
0.16
in
EAL
1.39
1.83
4.44
5.55
6.73
8.27
9.32
9.24
5.67
3.74
1.78
1.21
in/ac
CFR
1.55
2.02
4.72
5.89
7.09
8.74
9.87
9.77
6.07
4.06
2.01
1.38
3.98
59.18
63.16
TABLE C-3: STORAGE VOLUME CALCULATIONS

12
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
13
Effluent
Applied to
Land
in/ac/mo
EAL
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
TOTAL
42.18
Month
14A
%
MDR
5.6%
6.7%
7.0%
8.9%
12.8%
11.0%
6.5%
7.0%
10.9%
10.7%
7.1%
5.9%
in
RMAX
2.66
3.16
3.28
4.17
6.04
5.16
3.05
3.28
5.14
5.05
3.33
2.79
in
RUMAX
0.66
0.96
1.04
1.65
3.13
2.41
0.89
1.03
2.39
2.32
1.07
0.73
in
Ri (2)
2.00
2.20
2.25
2.52
2.92
2.75
2.16
2.25
2.75
2.73
2.26
2.06
17
Total
Available
Water
in
TAW
5.52
5.72
5.76
6.03
6.43
6.27
5.68
5.76
6.26
6.24
5.78
5.57
100%
47.12
18.26
28.86
71.03
Mean Rainfall
Rainfall (Max) Runoff (Max)
Distribution
M:\Data\1045\004\CanopySprayCalcs_and_Costs.xlsx,WATER BALANCE
Infiltrated
Rainfall
18A
18B
Net
Distribution of
Evaporation
Mean
(MIN)
Evaporation
%
%
DoM
NetE
4.0%
0.13
4.6%
0.14
7.0%
0.22
8.4%
0.27
9.0%
0.28
11.9%
0.37
13.7%
0.43
13.3%
0.42
10.0%
0.32
8.1%
0.26
5.8%
0.18
4.1%
0.13
100%
3.15
19
20
Storage
Accumulated
Storage
in-ac/ac
S
2.66
2.20
-0.48
-1.63
-2.87
-4.47
-5.57
-5.48
-1.82
0.17
2.22
2.83
AS
7.88
10.09
9.61
7.98
5.11
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
2.40
5.23
-12.23
49.10
TABLE C-4: NITROGEN UPTAKE CALCULATIONS

CANOPY SPRAY PARAMETERS
Daily Average Flow to Irrigation Field
Effluent Total Nitrogen
Q
Cn
Crop
Annual crop nitrogen uptake
Ny
500,000 gal/day
10 mg/L
Cedar
150 lbs/yr/ac
Base soil intake rate
IB
0.25 in/hr
Sprinkler spacing, lateral
SI
50 ft
Sprinkler spacing, main
Sm
SS
0.2 in
Maximum surface water storage
0.50 MGD
50 ft
NITROGEN LIMITING CALCULATIONS

Estimated lbs of total nitrogen applied
Minimum area needed of spray field (assuming nitrogen land limiting)
Tn
Arean
15,220.50 lbs/year
4,420,033.20 ft2
101.47 ac
TABLE C-5: STORAGE POND VOLUME CALCULATION

A @ WSE
722.0 ft
A @ Property
750.0 ft
Hypot Length
B @ WSE
722.0 ft
B @ Property
750.0 ft
Opposite Length
L @ WSE
687.0 ft
L @ Property
715.0 ft
A @ top
730.0 ft
Area @ WSE
11.39 ac
Area @ TOB
11.65 ac
666.0 ft
Area @ Bottom
0.00 radians
Angle
0.00 degrees
Total Pond Depth
15 ft
Side Slope
4 :1
Berms
10.0 ft
Free Board
1.0 ft
Water Depth
Side Slope Offset
Excavation Volume
B @ top
730.0 ft
L @ top
695.0 ft
A @ mid-point (Detent)
670.0 ft
B @ mid-point (Detent)
666.0 ft
L @ mid-point (Exc)
635.0 ft
L @ mid-point (Detent)
631.0 ft
A @ bottom
610.0 ft
B @ bottom
610.0 ft
L @ bottom
575.0 ft
236,360 Cu Yd
Footprint
=(A_Prop+B_Prop)/2*L_Prop
Mitigation Freeboard
TOTAL VOLUME
5,883,444 Cu Ft
217,910 Cu Yd
135.07 Ac-Ft
536,250 Sq Ft
8.05 ac
670.0 ft
=(A-mid_Exc+B-mid_Exc)/2*L-mid_Exc*Depth
Usable Volume (w/o FB)
ft
A @ mid-point (Exc)
60 ft
=(A-mid_Det+B-mid_Det)/2*L-mid_Det*Depth
B @ mid-point (Exc)
14.0 ft
6,381,750 Cu Ft
1.00 ft
12.31 Acres
11.44 Ac-Ft
146.50 Ac-Ft
TOB
Property
Bottom
TABLE C-6: OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS

Table of Parameters Used in Cost Calculations
Pond Surface Area
Powerline Easement
APond
11.6
ac
AEasement
6.6
ac
Easement Canopy Density
DCanopy
0%
percent
Tract Canopy Density
DCanopy
95%
percent
Total Tract Acreage
ATract
186
ac
Total Irrigated Area
Airr
174
ac
Sprinkler spacing, lateral
SI
30
ft
Sprinkler spacing, main

Sprinkler Heads Required
Sprinkler Heads to a Zone
Zones Required
Assumed 1/2" HDPE flex pipe per zone
Assumed 3/4" HDPE flex pipe per zone
Sm
-----------
30
8400
5.00
1680
50
100
ft
Pump and Manifold Cost Items

500 GMP pump with 8-inch discharge column assembly, motor, cable, and air
vacuum release valve.
Irrigation manifold connecting storage pond pumps to distribution system,
including micelaneous piping, valves, and fitting, and all other incidental piperelated costs, including all installation, complete in place.
Industrial Mainifold Timer Switch, including installation, complete in place
Security fencing and gate around pump station, including installation, complete in
place
Precast concrete building (assumed 20'X16') including foundation, uncluding
installation, complete in place.
Qty
Unit
Est. Price
Total
EA
$1,200
$2,400
LS
$55,000
$55,000
LS
$6,000
$6,000
80
LF
$35
$2,800
LS
$10,000
$10,000
SUBTOTAL:
$76,200
Sprinkler Head Cost Items

25-35' 6.0 GPM Rotor gear drive spray nozzle @ approximated 30' offsets,
including installation, including all incidentals, complete in place.
heads
ft
ft
Qty
Unit
Est. Price
Total
8,400
EA
$25.00
$210,000
SUBTOTAL:
$210,000
Qty
Unit
Est. Price
Total
25,000
LF
$0.50
$12,500
1/2" X 100' HDPE flex pipe from zone trannsmission pipe to sprinkler spray
nozzles (as a function of zone count), including all site preparation, excavation,
and any backfill necessary, and all other incidentals, complete in place.
840
EA
$25.00
$21,000
3/4" X 100' HDPE flex pipe from zone trannsmission pipe to sprinkler spray
nozzles (as a function of zone count), including all site preparation, excavation,
and any backfill necessary, and all other incidentals, complete in place.
1,700
EA
$33.00
$56,100
6,000
EA
$6.50
$39,000
600
EA
$10.50
$6,300
336
EA
$25.00
SUBTOTAL:
$8,400
$143,300
Qty
Unit
Est. Price
Total
1/2" reducers, tees, couplings, extenders, valves, and other incidental piperelated costs for establising the irrigation system (as a function of pipe lengths)
4,200
EA
$0.75
$3,200
3/4" reducers, fittings, couplings, extenders, valves, and other incidental piperelated costs for establising the irrigation system (as a function of pipe lengths)
8,500
EA
$1.00
$8,500
1" reducers, fittings, couplings, extenders, valves, and other incidental piperelated costs for establising the irrigation system (as a function of pipe lengths)
18,000
EA
$1.25
$22,500
3" reducers, fittings, couplings, extenders, valves, and other incidental piperelated costs for establising the irrigation system (as a function of pipe lengths)
1,800
EA
$2.00
$3,600
SUBTOTAL:
$37,800.00
System Pipe Cost Items

1/2" PVC spray nozzel riser pipe (assumed @ 3' in length), including installation,
including all incidentals, complete in place (as a function of nozzles).
1" X 10' schedule 40 PVC pipe for zone transmission to flex pipe, including all
site preparation, excavation, and any backfill necessary, and all other
incidentals, complete in place.
3" X 10' Schedule 40 PVC pipe for force main to zones, including installation,
including all site preparation, excavation, and any backfill necessary, and all
other incidentals, complete in place.
Plastic valve boxes (assumed 1'X2'), including instllation, complete in place.
Fittings Cost Items
Storage Pond Cost Items

Excavation Required
Qty
236,360
Unit
CY
Est. Price
$8.00
Total
$1,890,880
Geotextile Protective Layer, including installation, mobilization, required

penetrations, secondary and geocomposite liner (if required), complete in place.
507,350
SF
$2.50
$1,268,375
SUBTOTAL:
$3,159,255
Construction Cost Totals

In examining items with regard to cost, because this estimate is for the purpose
of planning, estimated costs include a contingency factor. Also, costs should be
considered high-level and subject to change as detailed information (survey,
geotechnical, environmental, real estate, etc.) is revealed. Methods of analysis
used in the development of this cost estimate are consistent with a planning level
of this detail. costs specified for the proposed infrastructure is intended only as
1) a guide for preliminary and follow-on detailed engineering and 2) a basis for
preliminary estimate of cost for infrastructure development. While procedures
consistent with this cost estimate are generally used, approximations and
engineering judgment was sometimes used because of the planning level nature
of this estimate and the unavailability of some data.
Pump and Manifold Cost Items

Sprinkler Head Cost Items
System Pipe Cost Items
Fittings Cost Items
Storage Pond Cost Items
TOTAL
Unidentified Elements
Contractor Overhead and Risk
30%
$3,627,000
$4,715,000
15%
$5,422,000
Engineering Fees and Legal
15%
$6,235,000
GRAND TOTAL:
$76,200
$210,000
$143,300
$37,800
$3,159,255
$6,235,000

Dripping Springs Direct Potable Reuse Feasibility Study

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dripping Springs Direct Potable Reuse Feasibility Study

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CITY OF DRIPPING SPRINGS

DIRECT POTABLE REUSE FEASIBILITY STUDY

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-882

City of Dripping Springs

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 1-1

CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 2-1

CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................... 3-1

END USES DEFINE WATER QUALITY GOALS ................................................... 3-1

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/

CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ................................................ 4-1

CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................... 5-1

DPR TREATMENT EVALUATION ......................................................................... 5-1

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/

CHAPTER 6 ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

EFFLUENT DISPOSAL OVERVIEW...................................................................... 6-1

CHAPTER 7 ....................................................................................................................... 7-1

APPROACH TO COST ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 7-1

CHAPTER 8 ....................................................................................................................... 8-1

CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 8-1

CHAPTER 9 ....................................................................................................................... 9-1

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 9-1

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/

TCEQ EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Dripping Springs Water Supply Company Service Summary ..................... 1-3

Overview Map ........................................................................................... 1-2

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/

Assimilable organic carbon

Effluent Electrical Conductivity

Electrical Conductivity Limit

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/

Nanograms per Liter

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH01

Future 35,000 gpd Drip Irrigation

DSWSC Well Field/

Dripping Springs Water Supply Company Service Summary

WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH01

Future Expansion of Wastewater Service

DIRECT POTABLE REUSE

Determine permitting requirements for a DPR project in the City;

Develop one or more feasible DPR alternatives;

Determine planning-level cost information for a preferred subset of the DPR

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH01

REGULATION OF POTABLE REUSE

Introduction to Potable reuse

Within potable reuse, one can define three main subcategories:

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH02

Water Rights and Project Permitting Approach

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH02

POTABLE REUSE REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Chemical Removal Goals and Requirements

A large number of chemicals known to be detrimental to human health above certain

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH02

Pathogen Removal Goals and Requirements

Pathogen Concentration End Goals for Drinking Water

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH02

Potable Reuse in Other Parts of the U.S.

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/TX/Dripping Springs/9756A00/Deliverables/Feasibility Study/CH02

WATER QUALITY GOALS

END USES DEFINE WATER QUALITY GOALS